PRIVATE BUSINESS

Standing Orders (Private Business)

Ordered,
	That the Amendments to Standing Orders set out in the Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 27,
	Line 66, leave out from "Office" to "and" in line 68 and insert—
	"and one copy at the Health and Safety Executive, the
	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the
	Department for Transport, Local Government".
	Standing Order 27A,
	Line 24, leave out from "be" to first "and" in line 26 and insert—
	"two in the case of a deposit at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, Local Government".
	Standing Order 29,
	Line 8, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government".
	Standing Order 30A,
	Line 4, leave out "of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
	Standing Order 31,
	Line 6, leave out "of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
	Standing Order 32,
	Line 8, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
	Standing Order 34,
	Line 10, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert—
	"for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government".
	Standing Order 37,
	Line 9, leave out from "Office" to "and" in line 10 and insert—
	"the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, Local Government".
	Line 14, leave out "a copy" and insert "two copies".
	Line 17, leave out from "the" to "and" in line 19 and insert—
	"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and one at the Department for Transport, Local Government".
	Standing Order 39,
	Line 3, leave out from "bill," to "three" in line 4.
	Line 4, after "at" insert "the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
	Line 5, after "Office" insert—
	"and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions".
	Line 6, leave out "the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".
	Line 9, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills".
	Line 10, leave out "of Social Security" and insert "for Work and Pensions".
	Line 20, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills".
	Line 23, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills".
	Line 29, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
	Standing Order 45,
	Line 20, leave out from "Department" to "and" and insert—
	"for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government".
	Standing Order 47,
	Line 10, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government".
	Standing Order 101,
	Line 4, leave out "Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert—
	"Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs".
	Standing Order 147,
	Line 7, leave out "the Environment, Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government".*
	Line 10, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government".*
	Standing Order 154,
	Line 12, leave out "the Environment, Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government".
	Line 28, leave out "the Environment, Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government".—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
	*refers to the Standing Order text as amended by the House on 28th February 2001.

Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Further Education Lecturers

Vincent Cable: What recent discussions she has held with representatives of further education lecturers.

John Healey: My right hon. Friend has not recently met representatives of further education lecturers. However, I met the general secretary of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education on Tuesday this week, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and I are due to meet representatives of NATFHE again on 18 July.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister share my deep concern that moderate and responsible further education lecturers are being driven to strike over pay? Does he agree that the underlying cause is a chaotic, inconsistent and unfair system for financing further education, in which, for example, lecturers on £25,000 a year are being paid £5,000 a year less than A-level lecturers in schools doing an identical job a few hundred yards away? Does he further agree that there needs to be a radical overhaul of the whole system of funding for further education, without which the Government's programme for post-16 education will not be able to deliver?

John Healey: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comparison between further education establishments and schools. In many ways, schools are different institutions with different problems, including many unqualified or part-time staff. Direct comparisons are, therefore, not appropriate. I share his concern over industrial relations in the field, but NATFHE's claim for an across-the-board £3,000 increase is simply not on the cards.
	What is in place this year, for the first time, is the teaching pay initiative, which provides money on top of the general funding for colleges. For the first time, this will give us the ability substantially to increase supplementary pay arrangements to reward better teachers, deal with recruitment and retention problems and recreate a proper career structure in further education. It will also allow us to create more funding for courses and colleges that are delivering the best training in the sector, and there will be extra funding this year, for the first time, for capital modernisation and information technology. In many ways, therefore, this year is the first year of a new era for further education, by contrast with the rather dispiriting and demoralising picture painted by the hon. Gentleman.

Anne Campbell: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position on the Front Bench—a post that is fully deserved. I also welcome the last answer that he gave. I have two excellent sixth-form colleges in Cambridge, serving my constituency. However, representatives of the colleges tell me that they are under severe pressure owing to a 4 per cent. increase in staff salaries, inflation that has risen by 2.5 per cent. and only a 1 per cent. increase in their funding. Will my hon. Friend investigate the circumstances in Cambridge?

John Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words of congratulation. I will certainly look into the position of the colleges in Cambridge that she has mentioned. I know that the colleges in her area are among the best and deserve support. She points out the need, and our plans, for rebuilding professionalism in further education and for rebuilding the resources available to the sector. There are still too many unqualified teachers, too many substandard courses and too many weak managers.
	This year, we have put in place—through the teaching pay initiative, the standards fund and the other money going into FE for specific purposes—rewards to encourage better teachers, backing for better training and professional qualifications, recognition for departments and colleges providing first-rate FE training and substantial support for colleges with special weaknesses that need special help.

Tim Boswell: Does the new Minister, whom I sincerely welcome to the Dispatch Box, appreciate that if—after what I understand was a somewhat extended departmental away-day which took him out of town later on the day—he had been able to attend the meeting in the Palace of Westminster with NATFHE lecturers, he would have seen a very lively meeting, at which the concern expressed was entirely genuine and moderate, and in no sense politically motivated?
	In particular, does the Minister realise that the problems might possibly be due to bureaucratic problems in getting the money through the local learning and skills councils, rather than the colleges themselves, which have their own problems, particularly with core funding? Money earmarked under the teaching pay initiative for current-year pay improvements has not always got through. There are real worries about the recruitment and retention of lecturers, and there is a question mark over the possibility of fulfilling the Government's ambitious targets for enrolment and the development of the further education sector. This is not, essentially, a party political issue, but it is one that is giving rise to widespread concern.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am required to get through the Order Paper; therefore, questions and replies must be brief.

John Healey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that guidance on my first outing at the Dispatch Box.
	I thank the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for his genuine congratulations. I respect his experience and knowledge of the field, but in this case he has got the wrong end of the stick. The learning and skills councils are ready, willing and able to provide money for the teaching pay initiative. Indeed, the provisional allocation has already been made to colleges. However, it is for colleges to conclude agreements with staff for the extra money, and they must provide the Learning and Skills Council with the simple assurance that it will be spent in line with the design of the scheme. It will be backdated to 1 April, so that no one loses out. My message to college managers and staff representatives is this: we have ensured that the money is available—get on with it.

Eric Illsley: I remind my hon. Friend of the circumstances at Barnsley college, where, at the end of last month, 120 lecturers were released because of its particular problems. As he is aware, the difficulties resulted from the loss of courses through franchising, which has left it with a £2 million budget shortfall. Will he reconsider Barnsley's circumstances to establish whether any Government help could be given to those whose jobs are under threat?

John Healey: I am well aware of the problems at Barnsley college, as some of my constituents are students there. One of my first actions in my first week in the job was to ask for an update on the situation. As my hon. Friend said, there have been serious problems and serious financial irregularities there. A full report is with the Learning and Skills Council and the local learning and skills council is developing, and will support, an action plan for the recovery of Barnsley college's position. In the meantime, we shall do all we can to ensure that courses, the position of lecturers and, above all, the provision of training for students at the college are not further damaged.

Learning and Skills Councils

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the responsibilities of the learning and skills councils; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Hodge: We have received few representations on the responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council. I have had several meetings with its chairman and chief executive in the past three weeks, and I am confident that the council will make a genuine difference over the coming years to widening participation in learning, driving up standards and improving achievement.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Minister on retaining her post in the Government. I shall share with her some representations that I have received from local firms, which are confused about who is responsible under the new arrangements for the Investors in People initiative and want to know whether it is the Learning and Skills Council or the Small Business Service. Guidance would be most welcome. Can she assure me that businesses will continue to be involved in the delivery of training to young people, as they were so successfully under the training and enterprise councils?

Margaret Hodge: On the hon. Lady's second point, I can assure her that businesses will continue to be involved. On the first, the Learning and Skills Council is responsible for ensuring that we meet our Investors in People target, extend the system and ensure that more people participate in it. However, there is nothing to prevent the Learning and Skills Council from negotiating and contracting with local business links or the Small Business Service to ensure that it delivers. I am pleased to tell the House that in North Yorkshire, which includes the hon. Lady's constituency, 43 per cent. of medium and large companies have attained the IiP standard, as have 132 small and medium-sized enterprises.

Adrian Bailey: How will the Learning and Skills Council increase participation in post-16 education? [Interruption.]

Margaret Hodge: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said that I could write an essay on that. However, bearing in mind what you, Mr. Speaker, said about answers, I shall try to keep my response brief.
	The Learning and Skills Council will set a strategy and business plan that will be implemented by the 47 learning and skills councils, which will work through existing institutions such as the further education sector and private providers, among others, as well as sixth-form schools and colleges to ensure that we extend participation. Extending participation is an essential part of the Government's manifesto commitment and is not only good for individuals, but key to ensuring that we build economic prosperity.

Theresa May: One of the responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council is the funding of school sixth forms. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), said earlier that there was no equivalence between schools and further education colleges, but the Government's funding arrangements are based on exactly that proposition. Many school sixth forms are under threat from the new funding arrangements under the Learning and Skills Council, which allow fees to be charged. Will the Minister give a pledge today that no school will face a reduction in its funding for pre-16 education as a result of the new arrangements, and that the funding allocated by the Learning and Skills Council to local education authorities for school sixth forms will all be passported to the schools?

Margaret Hodge: In fact, there have been no closures of school sixth forms since the Labour Government were elected in 1997. Any such closures took place under the Conservative Government, pre-1997. We gave a real-terms guarantee of funding at 2000–01 levels to all sixth forms when the funding was transferred to the Learning and Skills Council, provided that they maintained their pupil numbers. That is an unprecedented guarantee. We have instructed the Learning and Skills Council to passport through the entire funding to the sixth forms that will receive funding from it.

Specialist Schools

Bill Rammell: What plans she has to increase the number of specialist schools.

Gordon Prentice: How many and what percentage of secondary schools in England are expected to have specialist school status by June 2005.

Estelle Morris: I would not like Question Time to pass without extending the sympathy and thoughts of the House and the Department to those in Lambeth at the school with the child missing in the north of France. It is a difficult time for all concerned and it must be unutterably difficult for the parents and other members of the family who have to travelled to France this morning. I know that the whole House would wish to join me in sending them our best wishes and our thoughts. The Department will give whatever help might be appropriate in due course.
	From September 2001 there will be 684 specialist schools and we are working towards a target of 1,000 by September 2003. The Government's target of 1,500 specialist schools by September 2006 represents 46 per cent. of secondary schools in England.

Bill Rammell: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Does she agree that eventually every school should have its own distinctive mission and ethos? In taking forward that agenda, should not the Government welcome associated bids from two or more schools, where such a bid can be shown to be in the interests of developing such an ethos within each of those schools? Were such a bid to be forthcoming from schools in my constituency of Harlow, would she consider it very seriously?

Estelle Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. Schools do try to attain their own distinct ethos and we are working with the grain of schools in that respect. It is certainly our aim that all secondary schools develop their own ethos and mission. Some will find their voice in the specialist school movement and others will do so through training schools, beacon schools or church schools. That is the nature of diversity. However, I strongly feel that schools improve their standards most when they have a feeling of being different, of being special, and when they are proud of their children and their communities are proud of them. We want to help them work towards that. Although I welcome joint applications, I have a cautious word of advice for my hon. Friend. To be honest with him, I do not think that the existing rules encourage joint applications and my best advice to schools in his constituency would be to wait a while and see whether that guidance changes.

Gordon Prentice: If we are to have specialist schools, I am rather attracted by the Liberal Democrat policy, which is to make all schools special schools. We could then call them comprehensives. My attention was drawn to an article in the Financial Times yesterday stating that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards plans to put private companies in charge of state school departments—presumably that includes specialist schools. As a member of the Labour party's national policy forum, let me ask the Minister where that idea came from. It was never discussed in any of the Labour party's policy forums and, as the Minister will know, it was never discussed at the Labour party's annual conference last September. If we are going to have bizarre suggestions on a regular basis, the Government should at least honour us by telling us who was responsible for the idea in the first place.

Estelle Morris: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I want all schools to have in place the key measures of improvement that will enable them to take up specialist status. This is about extra resources and the capacity to spend them effectively to bring about improvements.
	On my hon. Friend's second comment, there are no circumstances in which I or my Department would force a school to outsource one of its departments. However, some head teachers may choose to do that. I want to make it clear that it would be their choice, with no instructions from me about the break-up of the school.

Phil Willis: I welcome the Secretary of State and her ministerial team to the Front Bench, and we wish them well in their short careers. We also welcome the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who will be the first Member to cross the Floor in this Parliament. Liberal Democrats will welcome his wise views.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that her policy on specialist schools is akin to creating a giant McDonald's-like franchise within our school system? The difference is that anyone can go into a McDonald's, but specialist schools will decide which students to take. Does she accept that by the end of the Government's second term in office, 60 per cent. of Britain's schools will remain bog standard—to use the phrase of the Prime Minister's press secretary? Given the failure of private sector investment in education action zones, will she today rule out the involvement of private sector companies in future specialist schools?

Estelle Morris: McDonald's restaurants are all the same, whereas our aspiration for the school system is that schools should have a common base but should be different, not the same. What upsets me most about the hon. Gentleman, who I know has education close to his heart, is that he has incredibly low aspirations for our school system. I believe that every school in the country can, with help and support, and with the will, passion and hard work of teachers, develop its own ethos. Schools try to do that, but in the past they have tried to do it by themselves. With our diversity agenda, we are bringing that approach into the national school system, so that we celebrate diversity. When schools are ready, we give them resources to help them to achieve that diversity. That is absolutely key.
	On private sector involvement, the hon. Gentleman may, on reflection, regret his slur on many education action zones. Children and teachers in some of the most disadvantaged areas have worked their socks off to raise standards, and in doing so have worked with the private sector. The improvement in attainment rates in those areas is a cause for celebration, and should not be knocked down. I welcome the private sector's involvement in those achievements. It has provided cash, but as the hon. Gentleman knows there have also been hours spent in schools reading with young children, mentoring head teachers, allowing access to places of work and raising children's vision so that they can aspire to work in business. I have no intention of turning my back on the contribution that the private sector can make to raising aspirations and delivering the world-class education system that we want.

Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Lady, whom I congratulate and welcome to her post, realise that in her pursuit of true excellence she is more likely to engage the hearts and minds of Conservative Members than of Labour Members? In that context, what plans does she have to encourage young people who want to follow a career in the crafts? Does she agree with me that craftsmanship is of supreme importance, and that not enough encouragement is given to such young people?

Estelle Morris: I shall ignore the fact that, in 1997, six out of 10 children could not read properly at the age of 11. I do not know how that reflects on the Conservative Government's commitment to excellence in schools. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the importance of the range of subjects that are termed as crafts. Crafts have long been neglected and have been squeezed out of the education system. We want both to acknowledge and to promote them and give children who achieve in that regard the applause and credit they deserve.
	The Government desperately want to give vocational education the status that it needs and deserves. We believe that our plans relating to vocational GCSEs and A-levels, and the policies that we are developing for 14 to 19-year-olds, will turn the tide that has been going in the wrong direction for the past 15 to 20 years.

Jonathan R Shaw: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position.
	Will the Department be publishing clear criteria for schools applying for special school status? Some schools experiencing serious weaknesses or special measures apply for such status, only for the applications to be turned down because the schools have not been given a clean bill of health by Her Majesty's inspectorate or Ofsted.
	Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Holmesdale community school, which was recently awarded special school status, and congratulating Ian Hobson—the head teacher—the governors and the entire Holmesdale team on their hard work?

Estelle Morris: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the school. I believe that this is the eighth time he has mentioned it at Question Time; on seven of those occasions it had not yet achieved a special school status, so I am very pleased to be able to congratulate it today and to put on record my hon. Friend's contribution in supporting its application.
	If the guidance is not clear I shall, of course, want to clarify it. I take my hon. Friend's point about schools experiencing special measures and serious weaknesses. Sometimes a school starts to experience special measures and serious weaknesses while it is putting together and submitting its application. When a school is in that position, it is pretty tough to get out of it; all efforts must be focused on the basics—on good teaching and leadership. I genuinely wonder whether, at that point in a school's development, it is able to take on special school status. It can, however, aspire to such status, and the prospect of no longer being subject to special measures and being able to apply for it may spur schools on.
	I should be delighted to look at the guidance again. As I have said, if it is not as clear as it should be I will endeavour to remedy the problem.

John Hayes: I welcome the new Secretary of State to her job. I know that she will bring her characteristic commitment and diligence to the task.
	Perhaps it was those qualities that encouraged the right hon. Lady to reverse the policy of exclusion targets that has been such a cause of dismay in schools throughout the country—special schools, schools experiencing special measures and other schools. She will know that heads, governors, teachers and, of course, the Opposition have mounted a vigorous campaign against the exclusion targets on which she has now performed a U-turn. However, uncertainty remains about the financial sanctions. The right hon. Lady will remember the punitive sanctions that the Government imposed on schools that did not meet those centrally defined targets. Will she confirm that, in that respect, DFEE circular 16/99 has been either rescinded or superseded by further guidance?

Estelle Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.
	The targets were reached, and we are not setting new ones. We have made that clear. I consider it cause for celebration that, under the present Government, schools have learning support units and learning mentors, and if they do exclude pupils they can be guaranteed a full-time education for those pupils to a greater extent than they ever were under the last Government. Schools have, however, reduced the number of exclusions from some 12,000 or 13,000, and rising, to about 8,600. I congratulate and thank them for that—and, as I have said, we are not setting new targets.
	As for the money that the hon. Gentleman describes as a fine, there are some tough decisions to be made. We did something that I would have expected him to welcome: we made local authorities delegate money to schools, so that the schools could use it to try to retain children. That, I think, is the place for the money. It is better for it to be used to help schools develop preventative treatment to stop exclusions than to sit with local education authorities.
	If a child is excluded after the money has been devolved to a school, I am adamant that that child will be given a full-time education and not left to roam the streets. Full-time education costs money, but the money has been delegated to schools, and must follow the child back to the local authority and then to the pupil referral unit. I think that that is right. It is delegated money to prevent exclusions, but if a child is excluded, the money guarantees full-time education. Again, I would have thought that the whole House welcomed that.

Student Hardship

David Rendel: What assessment he has made of reports from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in respect of alleviating student hardship.

Margaret Hodge: Our objective is to break down the barriers to wider participation in higher education, so that 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds will enjoy the opportunity of higher education by 2010. Our system of student support provides targeted support for students most in need while balancing, overall, the costs between student, family and taxpayer, but we shall continue to keep that under review, bearing in mind our participation objective and different approaches elsewhere.

David Rendel: Is the Minister aware that, according to a recent Barclays report, the average level of student debt is £6,500 and that that is expected to rise to up to £12,000 within a few years? Given that both the Cubie and Rees reports recommended radical reform of student financing in order to relieve student hardship in Scotland and Wales, do the Government accept that similar radical reform is necessary for English students, so that student hardship can be relieved throughout the United Kingdom?

Margaret Hodge: Many of the surveys that I have looked at since I have been a Minister make for a rather blurred understanding. The issue of student hardship is not as clear as the hon. Gentleman makes it out to be. For example, although students may incur a debt while at university, their earnings after university are 20 per cent. higher than those of people who did not go to university. That means that, over their lifetime, they are likely to earn £400,000 more. If that is set against the potential debt, it is not a disincentive to participation. Most students recognise the benefit of higher education.

George Howarth: I welcome the suggestion that my hon. Friend intends to keep the situation under review, but does she accept that there is growing evidence in constituencies such as mine that tuition fees are a disincentive to young people to go into higher education in the first place? In keeping the situation under review, will she at least keep her mind open to the possibility that there may be a case for reform in the near future?

Margaret Hodge: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will keep the situation under review. I draw to his attention the fact that, at the start of this autumn term, we expect over 50 per cent. of students not to have to pay tuition fees. We have targeted support, particularly for poor students, by quadrupling the hardship and access fund and by introducing the excellence challenge: a total of £190 million will be available over three years.
	I wish that we could to reach our target of increased participation in higher education, which we know is of benefit to individuals, society and the economy, just by dealing with student hardship. The reality is that nine out of 10 young people who achieve two A-levels do participate in higher education. The real challenge is to increase the number of young people achieving two A-levels. That comes under our schools agenda—our 14 to 19 agenda. A particular problem is the haemorrhaging of young people, who achieve five A to Cs at GCSE level and then do not stay on to do further education full time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must appeal again. I wish no offence to Ministers, but the replies are far too long. I must get through the Order Paper.

Mark Field: I congratulate the new Department for Education and Skills team and in particular the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who had an important part to play in my political career because I was a resident in Islington in the late 1980s when she was presiding over that shambles of a council. Indeed, it led to a legacy in education that resulted in none other than the Prime Minister ensuring that his own children no longer went to Islington schools—but I shall move to a serious point. We shall discuss in the House this afternoon the whole issue in relation to our allowances. [Interruption.]
	There is an implicit understanding that there are great costs involving staff in central London. May I ask the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid I shall have to stop the hon. Gentleman.

Adult Basic Skills

David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on her plans to improve adult basic skills.

Estelle Morris: The Government are fully committed to helping the estimated one in five adults who do not have adequate literacy, language or numeracy skills. The Prime Minister launched our strategy for improving adult basic skills on 1 March, and our manifesto reaffirmed our intention to help 750,000 adults to achieve basic skills by 2004. We are now working to deliver on that commitment.

David Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and add my congratulations on her well deserved appointment.
	May I remind her of the very interesting proposal in the national strategy for basic skills, which argues the case for a form of paid educational leave for low-paid workers with poor basic skills? Has there been any progress in implementing that proposal? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of paid educational leave could be considered more generally for groups of low-paid workers with poor basic skills?

Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I share his concern and determination to ensure that low-paid workers can access training in basic skills. Indeed, it is a truism that such workers are probably low paid because they do not have the basic skills; that just makes sense. I should remind my hon. Friend and the House that, under our strategy, basic skills education is free to everybody, whether they are in work, in part-time work or seeking work. One of our biggest challenges is to identify who those people are.
	Such people are often not very confident about coming forward to say that they lack basic skills. As my hon. Friend knows, we shall be doing all that we can over the coming months both through pathfinder and through pilot projects to attack the problem at every level—when people turn up for interviews at jobcentres or apply for jobs in workplaces, and when they are not in work. I shall certainly reflect on what my hon. Friend says. As the strategy progresses, we shall no doubt want to return to the matter.

Roy Beggs: I welcome the new Department for Education and Skills team and the announcements on improving adult basic skills. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's major investment in nursery education will also help to prevent children leaving school and becoming young adults without basic skills, and that decisions that she has had to take in that area are a recognition of past failure to identify and address the specific needs of individuals?

Estelle Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I disagree with him absolutely. Really tackling literacy and numeracy problems is about working with children before they start school, when their language is developing. If they are behind at the age of four or five, they often find it very difficult to catch up. Given our work in early-years education—not just on nursery places but on training staff so that they can teach what is appropriate at that age—together with our literacy and numeracy strategies, I would be immensely disappointed if the same number of adults had problems with basic skills in decades to come. It is a failure of the education system if people leave school and are still not functionally literate. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—the question is very much one of remedial work.

Educational Maintenance Allowances

John Grogan: What plans she has to extend the geographical coverage of educational maintenance allowances.

Ivan Lewis: Education maintenance allowances are now available in about 30 per cent. of the country as a pilot scheme. Our manifesto said that we would build on that, drawing on the evidence of the pilots. Early results are very encouraging, and we will be considering the case for expansion in the next spending review.

John Grogan: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post, and urge him to consider extending the education maintenance allowance scheme to every local education authority in time. All evidence suggests that the scheme has been extremely effective in encouraging staying-on rates, particularly for young people from low-income families. If he is minded to have more pilot schemes, will a greater proportion be introduced in rural counties, where participation rates can be as much of a problem as in urban areas? For example, staying-on rates in North Yorkshire declined by six percentage points in the five years to 1999.

Ivan Lewis: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and others who have done so much to draw attention to the plight of coalfield communities, attracting the resources needed to rebuild them after the wanton destruction and neglect under the Conservatives.
	We made a conscious decision to pilot educational maintenance allowances, which now cover about 30 per cent. of the country. Early evidence suggests that they are making a significant contribution to supporting young people so that they can stay in education. That is what they are for. We are anxious that, before we make a final decision on whether to extend the allowances throughout the country, we have qualitative evidence to show that they are the most effective way of delivering that objective. We believe that more and more such evidence will emerge. Early indications are indeed very positive, and when we make decisions about the future we will certainly consider the points that my hon. Friend has made.

AS-Levels

Sydney Chapman: If she will make a statement about the AS-level courses.

Ivan Lewis: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a review of the advanced level reforms. An interim report is due by the middle of July. My right hon. Friend will then consider carefully the next steps.

Sydney Chapman: Is it not now evident that the hasty reform of the A-level system was ill conceived and not properly thought through? It has led to chaos in the curriculum in many schools. I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's first decision, I think, on taking office—in which I wish her well—which was to order the urgent review on 13 June. When will the review be completed?

Ivan Lewis: My right hon. Friend did indeed act quickly to respond to the concerns that have been expressed both by young people and by teachers about some teething problems in the implementation of the new reforms. The report is being prepared by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, and an interim report will be available by the middle of July. My right hon. Friend intends to act on that report, so that we can put in place the necessary changes, where possible in time for September.

Caroline Flint: Many parents hope that their children will have passed their GCSEs and will go on to A-levels in the autumn. I welcome the review, but I hope that it will consider extracurricular activities for such young people, as that is an important part of their development, and examine the difficulties of trying to create a hybrid of a baccalauréat and a gold-standard A-level system.

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the concerns that have been expressed. That is why my right hon. Friend commissioned the review, part of which will be about extra-curricular activities. We intend to make clear to schools in time for September what needs to be done to ensure that the implementation of the reforms runs far more smoothly in future.

Theresa May: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box, but I have to tell him that parents, pupils and teachers will have been outraged by his complacent response in describing the difficulties that they have been suffering over AS-levels as "some teething problems". I can assure him that they feel that, over the past year, far from some teething problems, they have had every single tooth drawn slowly without anaesthetic. I hope that he will apologise to pupils, parents and teachers throughout the country for that remark, and join me in congratulating students and teachers on their hard work and perseverance. They now need the confidence and comfort of knowing that there will be no problems with their AS-level results. Will he guarantee that there are sufficient markers in place for the examinations and that all the results will be published on 16 August?

Ivan Lewis: How can it be complacent to commission an urgent review of AS-levels, which was my right hon. Friend's first act immediately after the general election? Many people have said in recent weeks that the principles of the A-level reforms are absolutely right. In fact, they build on proposals that first emerged in 1996, when the hon. Lady's party was in government. With regard to A-level reforms and their effect, let me quote from a couple of school principals and head teachers. Peter Newcombe, principal of Franklin college, Grimsby, said:
	"Students at my college have responded magnificently to the challenge and range of opportunities. Most have successfully sustained four AS levels and they have chosen subjects that broaden and deepen their experience." Chris Henstock, the head teacher at Lutterworth upper school in Leicestershire, said:
	"Fundamentally, I think the curriculum changes are a good thing. I have seen a lot more of my pupils doing a variety of subjects."
	There is no doubt that the vast majority of people believe that the principles behind the A-level reforms are absolutely right and that they are in the best interests of young people in this country. We are determined that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has made his point.

Schools (Devon)

Anthony Steen: What assessment she has made of the need to build new schools in Devon in the next five years.

John Healey: It is not for the Government to dictate how schools are organised locally. It is the duty of local education authorities to ensure that there are sufficient school places. We believe that decisions on the organisation of school places are best taken at that local level, with the knowledge of local needs.

Anthony Steen: First, may I congratulate the Minister on getting where he is? However, he can do better than that answer. Is he aware that secondary school children in my constituency are being bussed 40 miles a day? They are spending three to four hours a day in a bus because there are not sufficient school places near their homes. That is not acceptable to anyone. With 90,000 new homes being built in Devon, there will be even more bussing, which is expensive. We cannot have a bussing society such as exists in the United States. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that new schools are built before the new homes? There is no shortage of money, according to the Government. We need a system that ensures that new schools and infrastructure are in place before the new houses are built and people are allowed to live in them.

John Healey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments, but I urge him to take this matter up with the Devon local education authority, whose school plan predicts a shortfall of secondary school places of about 2,000 by 2003-04. However, I repeat that it is not for Whitehall to work out where those school places should be provided, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would want that. We can—and will—contribute to the funding for those new school places, as we have done since the last election. In that time, Devon LEA has received more than £96 million in capital funding.

City Secondary Schools (Standards)

Valerie Davey: What further measures the Government plans to take to raise standards in city secondary schools.

Stephen Timms: We are committed to transforming secondary education in this country. Through the forthcoming education Bill, we will be putting in place legislation to create a more diverse system that can provide high standards of education for all our children, and meet their individual needs in cities and in every part of the country.

Valerie Davey: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his post, and thank him for his reply. In Bristol, the city council has depended on, and built on, the collaborative work of the excellence in schools initiative. However, Bristol's diverse nature has led the council to undertake a citywide review of secondary provision. Will my hon. Friend and his Department give the support and encouragement that this creative but demanding initiative requires?

Stephen Timms: We are well aware of the developments in Bristol, and are very encouraged by the steps that have been taken to achieve improvements in the way that the LEA supports its schools. We are also very heartened by the progress of Excellence in Cities in Bristol, which has been involved in that initiative since September 2000. I know that 20 secondary schools are involved. In Bristol and elsewhere, we are detecting real progress being made in dealing with some of the long-standing problems that have faced secondary schooling our cities.

Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new Government position. He is one of the most courteous and caring of Ministers and I wish him well. Does he accept that one of the ways to raise standards in city secondary schools in particular would be to encourage firm discipline, because in a disciplined environment young people are much more inclined to learn and to gain the benefit of good teaching? Does he believe that discipline in city secondary schools is of the utmost importance in raising standards?

Stephen Timms: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and agree that pupil behaviour is an important topic. We will address that in the White Paper, and we have taken some important steps to improve the position. This year, for example, we are providing £174 million to address poor behaviour in schools: 10 times the level of 1997. It is a matter that we will need to keep under close review.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Domestic Violence

Judy Mallaber: If she will make a statement on the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service on prosecuting crimes of domestic violence.

Harriet Harman: The Crown Prosecution Service will publish new policy guidance for prosecutors on domestic violence this autumn. Further to the initial consultation, there will be extensive consultation on this guidance with the police, local government, voluntary organisations and the courts, and the Attorney-General and I will be consulting on domestic violence with our ministerial colleagues— in particular with the Ministers with responsibility for women, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office.

Judy Mallaber: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on her well deserved appointment and thank her for the urgency with which she is tackling a most traumatic and difficult issue in respect of which there are still low levels of successful prosecutions. On Friday, I attended a good multi-agency conference on domestic abuse at Derbyshire police headquarters. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take account of the point made to me there, which was that although dedicated domestic abuse police officers have been created over the past six years—encouraging the CPS to take a more proactive line—those involved are still frustrated at the cases that are dropped? In drawing up the guidance, will she urge the CPS to be prepared to use section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which allows the admission of written statements when witnesses feel that they cannot attend court because of a well founded terror of further reprisals by the perpetrators of their abuse?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues, and I thank her for her kind comments. I wish to take this opportunity to pay the warmest of tributes to my predecessor. I hope and expect that he will continue to play an important role in this House generally, and in relation to the legal issues on which he is most expert.
	My hon. Friend raises a number of issues, including the low level of prosecutions arising from domestic violence. We are not clear as to what the conviction rate is on domestic violence, the number of prosecutions that take place or the number that are discontinued half way through. The CPS is undergoing a review of the statistics, so that these issues, which are very important, can be monitored. My hon. Friend talked about the police in her county having a dedicated domestic violence officer who is responsible. That will happen also in the CPS, and will be in the guidance. The issue will be taken very seriously indeed.

John Bercow: I congratulate the Solicitor-General on her return to the Government and on this particular and important appointment. In welcoming the multi-agency approach that she has just described, will she confirm that she intends to liaise closely with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and to ensure thereby that the CPS is well aware of the significance of the contents of the Homelessness Bill in terms of improving the treatment of and opportunities for women who have suffered domestic violence and are at risk of losing their homes?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are the obvious Departments that are involved in this issue, but many others are involved, including the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, which is concerned with protecting children in households where there is domestic violence. The Attorney-General and I will take up the hon. Gentleman's important point.

Joan Ryan: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to her new post. Is she aware of a successful initiative employed in Sweden in which the police, when called to a domestic violence incident, immediately video the victim and any injuries that she has sustained, and the surroundings in which the incident has taken place, and then use that in court? This has increased the number of perpetrators pleading guilty and the number of convictions. Are there any plans or pilots to employ such methods here, and would that evidence be admissible in court?

Harriet Harman: That is something that is being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is working closely with the police on this issue. It is possible to use in court photographs, including videos, of any injuries that have taken place, but it is also necessary to prove how those injuries were occasioned. Those issues will be addressed in the guidance.
	As hon. Members know, we must take domestic violence seriously. Yesterday, I visited the CPS in Hampshire and was told that a quarter of all the assaults in that area are domestic violence. It is an important issue and will be a priority for the CPS, working with the police.

Crown Prosecution Service

Desmond Swayne: What plans she has to reform the structure of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Harriet Harman: The CPS is currently undertaking the restructuring proposed in the Glidewell report. As well as structural improvements, the CPS is recruiting more lawyers and administrative staff with the extra resources that have been allocated. The CPS is an important public service and a key part of the criminal justice system. It needs to be properly funded, properly structured and able to get on with its work.

Desmond Swayne: Absolutely. Will the right hon. and learned Lady assure the House that the reforms that she will put in place will address the criticisms of many victims, and an increasing number of police officers, that the CPS has been fumbling its case load?

Harriet Harman: There have been several problems with organisation, and those are being addressed through closer work with the police; with understaffing, which has been a long-term problem both among lawyers and among administrative staff; and with low morale as a result of those problems. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that we need an effective, efficient and fair prosecution system as part of building confidence in the criminal justice process. The restructuring is under way and the resources are being put in, and we all want to be sure that we have the best possible outcome.

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall not express my congratulations again to my right hon. and learned Friend, because I did so in my maiden speech last week. What measures does she intend to take to tackle racism in the CPS? I hope that she, too, feels concern about what has been going on in the CPS, as reported in the media recently.

Harriet Harman: The Attorney-General and I have a clear view on that matter: we must be certain that equality of opportunity operates in the CPS and that there is no tolerance of racial discrimination. That is important as a matter of principle in a public service employer, but it is also essential, for the CPS to be able to do its job, that people in local communities and from different ethnic minorities know that they can turn to the service if they are a victim and, if defendants, know that they will receive fair treatment. The Denman report on those issues is with the CPS now, and will be published shortly.

Edward Garnier: May I join others in congratulating the Solicitor-General on her recent appointment? It marks her return to the Front Bench after four years and to the practice of law after 20. Her appointment to silk is probably unprecedented. Does she see her role as more than simply being politically accountable for the CPS and its budget, and if so, when does she expect to be in a position to appear in the higher courts here, and in the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of the CPS or the Government?

Harriet Harman: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are different aspects to the jobs of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. In one dimension, the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct: the supervision of the CPS is like the supervision of the police by a Home Office Minister. The Attorney-General and I are also responsible for consents to prosecution and moving contempt, and in that respect we operate in the public interest. We also act as lawyer advisers to Government. None of those roles necessitates appearing in the higher courts or, indeed, any courts at all. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was shocked to discover that I was a Queen's counsel, he should imagine the surprise I felt on discovering myself in Lord Bingham's full-bottomed wig, dressed up as if I were appearing in a restoration comedy.

John Burnett: I congratulate the new Solicitor-General on her appointment; I also pay tribute to her predecessor, the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), and put on record my thanks to him for his unfailing courtesy and conscientiousness. We now have a new Attorney-General. He is, I understand, an able lawyer, but he has, of course, failed the acid test: he has not been validated by a constituency of the British people, and is not accountable to this House.
	The Prime Minister has now appointed three Law Officers from the other House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question to the Solicitor-General. I am not looking for a speech now.

John Burnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I have made my point about the appointment of the Attorney-General, and I shall now revert to the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda). There was a report in The Independent two weeks ago about racism in the Crown Prosecution Service. Those are important allegations, and I would like to know where the report is, when it will be put into the public domain and what the Solicitor-General's views on it are.

Harriet Harman: The Denman report is completed; it is with the Crown Prosecution Service and will shortly be published. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is also a Commission for Racial Equality investigation into the Crown Prosecution Service in Croydon, and that, as a public service, we have the responsibility to implement the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Many issues need to be brought together into focus to ensure that, for the reasons that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), we go forward positively, with no discrimination, and with equality of opportunity.
	The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) also raised the issue of the accountability of the Law Officers. The Attorney-General is accountable to the House of Lords and I am accountable to the House of Commons. If the hon. Gentleman has any points of substance to make about that, no doubt he will raise them. I think that it is important to have a Law Officer in each House, so that the Law Officers are accountable to both Houses.

Business of the House

Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House give the business for the coming week, please?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 9 July—Second Reading of the Export Control Bill.
	Tuesday 10 July—Second Reading of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Motion to approve the draft special education needs code of practice.
	Wednesday 11 July—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (1st Day).
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Thursday 12 July—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day]. Until about four o'clock, there will be a debate on post-16 education followed by a debate entitled "The Countryside in Crisis". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
	Friday 13 July—Debate on small firms on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	The provisional business for the following week is:
	Monday 16 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
	Motions to approve the membership of Select Committees.
	Motion to approve the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001.
	Tuesday 17 July—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (2nd Day).
	Wednesday 18 July—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (3rd Day).
	Thursday 19 July—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
	Friday 20 July—Motion on the summer recess Adjournment.

Angela Browning: I thank the Leader of the House. Can he tell us when the Home Secretary is likely to come to the Chamber, especially as Members will have questions for him about the announcement of the Government's response to the Halliday review on sentencing policy, which he will make today at a conference? In a written answer yesterday, he said that that was how he intended to put that information in the public domain. However, there is very limited time before the House rises for the summer recess, and this is an important subject. The House deserves an opportunity to hear at first hand from the Home Secretary and to put questions to him.
	Equally, we heard this week of the Government's intention to change the legislation in respect of entitlement to incapacity benefit. Before that is debated in the Chamber, will the Leader of the House arrange for consultation with Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, as many of us are already receiving correspondence from concerned constituents about how this will affect them?
	Is there any intention to ensure that the House receives a statement on the future of the tube and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman make it his personal business to ensure that that happens? Given that negotiations have broken down on how the reform of the tube is to be taken forward, which has caused great confusion, and given the high priority that the Government have placed on improving the tube, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the House can expect a statement on how this is to go forward?
	Last Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) asked the Minister for Local Government about the timetable for bringing forward legislation to introduce regional government. We understand that the Government are to produce a White Paper, and the Minister indicated in his response to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool that consultation is currently taking place. Will the Leader of the House ensure that all Members of Parliament are privy to the consultation that is taking place prior to the White Paper, as many of us wish to make our views known in advance of its publication?
	Finally, the Leader of the House announced that next Thursday the Conservative party has, yet again, chosen to allocate Opposition time to debating foot and mouth. The Government have yet to provide Government time for a full debate on foot and mouth. When the crisis started, the then Agriculture Minister stated that he could not participate in such a long debate because he was too busy dealing with the crisis. Now that we are told by the Government that we are on the home straight, perhaps the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could honour the House with some time, in Government time, so that right hon. and hon. Members can ask their questions.

Robin Cook: I thank the hon. Lady, and shall respond to her questions in the order in which she put them.
	On the Home Secretary's statement in response to the Halliday report, the hon. Lady will be aware that there is a debate on youth justice in Westminster Hall on 19 July. That will be a perfectly appropriate opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to raise questions on the Halliday report and sentencing. Plainly, it must be right for the Government to act as quickly as they can on a report that spells out that prison sentences should be used and targeted on those who are severe repeat offenders and that shorter prison sentences should be combined with rehabilitation and community provision. There will, of course, be a consultation process on the Halliday report, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will wish to take part in it.
	There will have to be legislation before any of the proposed changes on entitlement to incapacity benefit take place. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will have an extended period of consultation with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about those proposals.
	It may help the hon. Lady and others in responding to the approaches to which she referred if I make it clear that any proposals that are made to change the rules on incapacity benefit by legislation would apply only to new claimants subsequent to that legislation. Therefore, any change in legislation will not have an impact on current claimants. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend confirmed that to me this morning.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will be making a written statement to the House very shortly. We are looking for a way forward. There is an enormous sum of investment available for London Underground. The funds available from Treasury and private sources amount in total to some £13,000 million—that is £4,000 per household within the London region. It is deeply frustrating that we cannot secure the agreement that we need with London Transport and London Underground so that we can proceed with that massive investment, which many other parts of Britain would be very glad to receive.
	The hon. Lady also asked about the timetable for publication of the forthcoming White Paper. I can assure her that all right hon. and hon. Members will know about the White Paper's publication and will be able to take part in consultation.
	In conclusion, I thought that the hon. Lady was uncharacteristically ungenerous to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In the short space of time since the Queen's Speech, there may not have been an opportunity for a debate on foot and mouth in Government time, but the first statement to the House this Session was on foot and mouth and my right hon. Friend made it at the first available opportunity. I do not think that anybody can fairly accuse her of having failed to take every opportunity to keep the House informed of progress.

Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on early-day motion 60?
	[That this House deplores the misleading television advertisements of loan consolidation companies who promise debt relief by combining debts into a single manageable payment; notes that they increase, usually by more than 15 per cent., the total debts of their clients and lengthen the period of indebtedness; and urges restrictions on their misleading claims and a wider understanding of the similar services provided at no charge by the Citizens Advice Bureau.]
	The early-day motion refers to the activities of so-called loan consolidation companies that purport to solve debt problems by rolling up debts into a single manageable payment. The result of their activities is usually to drive their client into deeper debt and to give the impression to many others who might risk debt that there is an easy way out. Can we have a debate so that we can advertise the danger of the activities of these companies and the fact that citizens advice bureaux and the Consumer Credit Counselling Service offer the services entirely free?

Robin Cook: I fully share my hon. Friend's concern about this issue. I have had distressing constituency cases of people being tempted into further debt and then discovering that the debt repayments greatly exceed anything that hon. Members would ever contemplate entering into. Those who have become caught in that way feel unfairly trapped. I am pleased to say that the Director General of Fair Trading is consulting on the prospect of issuing guidelines to debt management companies. Those guidelines must highlight the importance of giving comprehensible and high-profile warning of what the debt repayment would be.

Paul Tyler: I warmly welcome the clarification that the Leader of the House has just given us on incapacity benefit. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would have benefited if the Prime Minister had made such a clear statement yesterday in answer to a question on the issue. It by no means seemed to be in his mind yesterday that the proposal would not apply to existing claimants. I hope that the Leader of the House will note how important it is for statements to be made to the House in full detail on issues of this sort. This is yet another illustration of that.
	On sentencing policy, the Leader of the House should note that the Home Secretary's answer to a planted question last night was wholly inadequate—there was no detail whatsoever—yet the detail that the Home Secretary gave to the "Today" programme this morning was very full indeed.
	Will the Leader of the House look again at the issue of making statements to this House? He will recall that you, Mr. Speaker, and your predecessor on many occasions deprecated the practice of Ministers appearing on the "Today" programme and making detailed statements there, where they were subjected to the questioning of journalists only, while this House did not have an opportunity to put those questions. As Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman has a right and a duty to defend the rights of this House. I ask him, as I did a fortnight ago, please to look particularly at this issue. If Ministers go on saying that Parliament has lost the respect of the public, they are simply contributing to it if they think that Mr. John Humphrys, Mr. Jim Naughtie or even Miss Sue MacGregor are more important than we are in this House.

Robin Cook: I would disagree with the idea that I hold that view. If my right hon. Friend was able to give a full answer on the "Today" programme this morning, I congratulate him, because I could never get through a full answer on that programme.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an important consideration. I draw attention to the fact that the Halliday report is now out for consultation. The Government are not taking a decision on it—it would be wrong to do so until consultation finishes. That consultation will continue until 31 October, by which time the House will have recommenced and there will be a fresh opportunity for Members to table questions and pursue the issue.

Mark Fisher: May I pursue the point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has just raised? Does the Leader of the House accept that there is an issue of principle here, in that we have been elected to the House to scrutinise Government actions, so Government initiatives and statements should come first to this House? Even though the paper is out for consultation, the House should have the opportunity to raise the first questions with the Government. That is what we have been elected to do. Does the Leader of the House accept that overall position? Will he do all he can to persuade the Government in this Parliament to make a principled stand as a matter of course always to bring initiatives and statements to this Chamber first?

Robin Cook: I am all in favour of principled stands and will certainly seek to ensure that, where appropriate, statements are made to the House. A balance has to be struck, however. The House has much business to commence with, and if my hon. Friend goes through the business that I have just announced he will see that on many of those occasions it would be inappropriate to make a statement before the House, because it would interfere either with a programme motion or with Opposition business. However, bearing in mind those constraints, I am of course always in favour of the House being fully informed and having as many statements as possible.

George Young: Can we test the good will of the Leader of the House on the statement that he has just made? Will he give us an assurance that next week the Government will not make important announcements about their policy without first making a statement to the House of Commons?

Robin Cook: If there are strategic statements that represent new policy, the House is the place that would hear of that first. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he did that by way of a written statement—

Eric Forth: Oh, come on!

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman groans, but to make a written statement is an entirely well trodden, well known and well accepted method of informing the House. If we allow Ministers to make only oral statements, with no written statements, there will be little time for other debate in the House.

Diane Abbott: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 23 on missile defence?
	[That this House expresses concern at President Bush's intention to move beyond the constraints of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in developing missile defence; and endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which recommended that the Government voice the grave doubts about NMD in the UK, questioned whether US plans to deploy NMD represent an appropriate response to the proliferation problems faced by the international community and recommended that the Government encourage the USA to explore all ways of reducing the threat it perceives.]
	I urge the Leader of the House to make time for a debate on disarmament so that the House may examine President Bush's proposals for national missile defence. Among other things, the House should explore the fact that the technology is wholly unproven and that it is almost certainly in breach of existing disarmament treaties; that the threat posed to America by a nuclear strike from North Korea is risible; and that the proposals have been opposed by Russia, China and most EU states. It is surely appropriate that the House has a chance to debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Lady and to the House that business questions should be short and not statements of policy?

Robin Cook: I am sure that there will be opportunities for hon. Members to raise the concerns articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Indeed, she and others have expressed those concerns on a number of occasions. However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that although she refers to President Bush's proposals, we currently have no specific proposal—partly owing to the fact that, as she points out, the technology is still under examination and assessment. For instance, we do not know at present whether the system will be sea or land-based. Whether it is based on sea or on land will have a big impact on the extent—if any—to which facilities in the United Kingdom are required. It would be premature of the Government to make a hard and fast rule.
	I advise my hon. Friend not to diminish the very real threat of nuclear missile proliferation—she understates the technological capacity of North Korea. However, the House would be right to be worried about the proliferation of ballistic missile technology.

Simon Burns: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House as a matter of urgency to make a statement on what is going on with regard to the redundancies at the Marconi companies that affect so many of our constituents? Is the Leader of the House aware that the company is releasing information in dribs and drabs? It is desperately unfair for constituents, such as mine in Chelmsford and in the constituencies of other hon. Members, that they have to go to work today not knowing whether they will be out of work by the end of the day or at some time early next week because the company will not make a full announcement.

Robin Cook: I fully understand the unease, concern and worry of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Having been through a similar experience with Motorola in my own area, I know how desperately unsettling it is for members of staff not to have full information on what may happen to their plant. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in contact with the company and are pressing for full details of its plans. We are also seeking contact with local partners, both from the Employment Service and local authorities, so that we are ready to respond once we are clearer about what precisely the company may propose for its British work force.

Louise Ellman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an inquiry is under way into very serious allegations about poor conditions and intimidation experienced by asylum seekers at the Landmark and the Inn on the Park tower blocks in Liverpool? Does he have any information on the progress of those inquiries and on when they are likely to be concluded? Will he consider holding a debate on the treatment of vulnerable asylum seekers—a very important subject?

Robin Cook: I am aware of the complaints that a number of the asylum seekers at the Landmark facilities have made about their treatment. I am also aware of their threat to go on hunger strike if those issues are not addressed. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Home Office is conducting a thorough investigation. I assure her that it will be thorough and that we want to make clear what has happened in this case and to learn the lessons from it. My noble Friend Lord Rooker would be very willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the case if she wished to pursue it with him.

Roy Beggs: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the proposed business for next Tuesday—namely, the Second Reading of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill? In view of the talks on the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly, decommissioning and the peace process, which will presumably involve the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland political parties on Monday, Tuesday and perhaps even Wednesday of next week, would it not be inappropriate to hold that important debate on that occasion, as, no doubt, Northern Ireland elected representatives would like to express their views on the issue? Will the Leader of the House consider deferring the debate for a week?

Robin Cook: I have announced the business for next week, and I have announced that debate on Tuesday at the request of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is plainly confident that he can attend the debate and play his full part in it. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we ensure that the election system in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is above reproach, fairly administered and cannot be abused. Whatever view people take on the peace process, it is important that such a Bill should be put in place, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is confident that he can accommodate it next week.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House next week to explain how increasing the anxiety and insecurity of those people who have had to pass a stringent personal capability test to receive a meagre £69-a-week incapacity benefit helps them to take advantage of the opportunities available through the new deal to help them to overcome the discrimination that they suffer in the labour market? Before he does so, will he reacquaint himself with what he and my right hon. Friend now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in opening and closing speeches in debates on social security legislation introduced when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister?

Robin Cook: I remember that period well, and I am glad that it is behind us. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend fully took in the point that I made earlier in my comment to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).

Dennis Skinner: Repeat it.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend clamours for a repeat, and I am always happy to repeat it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions assured me this morning that the new legislation would, of course, apply only to new claimants, as is common with social security legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) can therefore provide reassurance to those who may be expressing unease to her.
	On the issue of principle, I must say that my hon. Friend and I fought the election on a manifesto in which it was made quite explicit that we would help back into employment those who could work and who would prefer to work. We should not lose sight of the fact that 1 million people currently on disability benefits say, when asked, that they would prefer to be at work, and it should be the function of government to help them and support them in finding work.

Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has just said and what he said earlier are suspiciously like a definitive response to the pressure placed on the Prime Minister by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) yesterday? Can we have absolute clarification by having the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions come to the Dispatch Box next week to explain in detail to the House precisely what he has in mind?

Robin Cook: I am very happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that a debate will start in Westminster Hall in an hour and a half on the role of the Department for Work and Pensions, to which a Minister from the Department will respond. If hon. Members wish to pursue clarification, they have plenty of opportunity to do so this afternoon, although I anticipate that many hon. Members will wish to be in their place for the full debate that we shall have in the Chamber.

Glenda Jackson: Despite his previous answers, could not the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on incapacity benefit to be made at the earliest opportunity by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so that the fears of some of my most vulnerable constituents—entirely justified fears, given the somewhat insensitive manner in which the issue has been introduced to the public arena—can be set to rest?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend has expressed concerns that I hope the statement that I have just made will go some way to addressing. Hon. Members are now perfectly able to say to their constituents that any change in legislation will not alter the basis on which incapacity benefit is received by current claimants.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Leader of the House assist me? I was lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate yesterday in which the question was raised as to who has the power to close footpaths outside infected areas in counties such as North Yorkshire. The point was made to the Minister for Rural Affairs that the Government should take such decisions. The Minister said that it was the responsibility of local authorities, but North Yorkshire county council is under the firm impression that this is the Government's responsibility. Will the Minister for Rural Affairs come to the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity to clarify the matter?

Robin Cook: I am no legal expert, but my understanding has always been that it was the primary responsibility of the local authority. Indeed, local authorities across England have been acting on that assumption over the past three or four months. However, if there is any doubt about the matter, I shall arrange for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs to write to the hon. Lady to clarify it.

Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the shameless way in which the Conservative leadership and some Conservative candidates exploited the sensitive issues of immigration and asylum in the run-up to the general election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I must remind him that these are business questions, and that he should be asking questions about the business for next week. If he has not a question on that, I shall move on.

Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on those issues, so that we can discuss the behaviour at the general election? Will he also take the opportunity to celebrate the fact that, last weekend, we celebrated our first-ever multicultural festival in the town square in Dover, and that a good time was had by one and all?

Robin Cook: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suspect that I should be in some trouble if I attempted to make the statement that my hon. Friend tempts me to make. I said what I wished to say on the matter at the time, and it was well reported. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action being taken in Dover to promote and celebrate the strength of Britain as a multicultural society.

Alex Salmond: Can we have a debate next week on the constitutional position of the Prime Minister? The Leader of the House will have noticed that, over the past few days, when the Prime Minister has talked about the privatisation of public services, about the star wars project, about taking money away from disabled people or about giving money to Railtrack executives, he has received no support whatsoever from the those on the Government Benches, but an enormous amount of support from the Tory Benches. Would it be constitutionally possible for the Prime Minister to cross the Floor? Could we have a debate about it?

Robin Cook: More frequently, we are accused of using our record majority in a way that is inconsistent with parliamentary democracy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will notice that, even as I speak, Conservative Members are agreeing with that. They cannot have it both ways: they cannot simultaneously complain about a record majority and a lack of support for the Prime Minister.
	Throughout this Parliament, we will carry through the programme on which we were elected. We will ensure that we improve public services in schools, hospitals and transport, and that we carry through a programme of welfare reform that helps those who want to work and can work, and protects those who are unable to work. On that, the Prime Minister has the full support of this side of the House.

Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Government's youth policy in general? Too often, we debate youth justice and other matters that paint a negative image of our young people. However, I know from campaigning recently that we need to look at the services that are available to those young people, including recreation and sports provision. I believe that we could devote more time in here to discussing matters that affect young people in general.

Robin Cook: I very much share my hon. Friend's emphasis on ensuring that we provide properly targeted, sensitive policies for young people, and he will welcome the fact that that is reflected in the changes made to the machinery of government after the election. We now have a new Cabinet Committee on children and young people's services and, for the first time, a Minister with responsibility for young people—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs—has been appointed. That will enable us to focus and target our services and policies on young people. Just before the election, we set out a strategy for children and young people on which consultation is taking place, so my hon. Friend and others will have an opportunity to feed in their views.

Eric Forth: The Leader of the House has had a long and distinguished career representing a Scottish constituency in this place. Will he arrange an urgent debate to give us the benefit of that experience and his wisdom, with particular regard to the West Lothian question? In the light of his new responsibilities and in respect of both his long experience and distinguished service here as a great parliamentarian and of any previous pronouncements he may have made on the subject, we would all find it very interesting to hear what he thinks about and what answer he or the Government have to the West Lothian question.

Robin Cook: I very much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's observations on my experience, although when he makes such comments I wish that he would make them sound a little less like an obituary. On the question of the participation of Scottish Members in the House, as I said last week and the week before, this is a unitary Chamber. All Members have equal rights. I do not remember respect being paid to the sensitivity of Scottish political preferences when he was in government.

David Wright: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an early debate on housing and regeneration policy? The quality of some local housing estates was a key issue in the election campaign in my constituency. Many are still in local authority ownership, but some have transferred to other landlords. There is a clear difficulty in co-ordinating services on many such estates and the funding regimes that can regenerate them are often difficult to assemble and labyrinthine in nature. May we have an early debate on simplifying funding regimes for housing estates to draw together a range of partners and make genuine improvements for local people?
	On the Woodside estate in my constituency, local people—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will improve his chances of being called more frequently if he keeps his questions brief and concise. He has said enough to enable the Leader of the House to respond.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises serious issues and raises them—

Eric Forth: At length.

Robin Cook: No, in penetrating detail. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are conveyed to the appropriate Secretary of State. We began this Session with the Homelessness Bill and there will be further opportunities to legislate on housing. He and others will be welcome to express their views in those debates.

John Wilkinson: Why does the Leader of the House think it appropriate to announce in a written answer the fact that the Transport Commissioner for London finds unacceptable the future of the tube as set out in the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Does not that announcement represent a gross insult to the people of London, who have suffered for four long years and more from the unworkable proposals for London's transport system made by Her Majesty's Government?

Robin Cook: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the commissioner made his views clear earlier this week. There were exchanges about that at Prime Minister's questions yesterday, and a full statement has been made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I am bound to say that I think it appropriate that such a response has been made and I am not necessarily persuaded that I should accept the precedent that when the Transport Commissioner for London makes a statement, an oral statement should also be made to the House.
	We are the ones who are looking for the way forward; the commissioner has said that he cannot see a way forward. I repeat that £13 billion of investment is available to Londoners to improve the underground, and it is regrettable that the commissioner cannot find a way to access and use the moneys available to him. Most other local authorities in Britain would find a way round the problem.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Further to the comments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), my right hon. Friend will be aware that this week there have been a number of disturbing press reports on the recession in manufacturing industry and a downturn in the electronics industry. Given the importance of those industries to the UK economy, while I welcome the debate on small businesses, when will the House have an opportunity to discuss the future of manufacturing per se in the UK?

Robin Cook: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern about the present difficulties in the electronics industry. As I said earlier, I have personal experience of that with the Motorola closure in West Lothian. Manufacturing industry is continuing to perform well in terms of both output and productivity, but there are particular problems in the electronics sector. It is open to right hon. and hon. Members to raise these issues whenever we debate economics and industry, which we did only last week. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will draw her comments to the attention of my appropriate colleagues and we will consider having such a debate in future.

Archy Kirkwood: When the Leader of the House makes his business statement next week, will he be in a position to indicate which, if any, Government Bills this year will be draft Bills published and subjected thereafter to pre-legislative scrutiny under the Select Committee system? May I suggest as an appropriate candidate the clauses on incapacity benefit in the welfare reform Bill?

Robin Cook: On the general principle, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the Queen's Speech we announced four Bills for draft legislation, which will be brought before the House. I have said before that I would like the House to move towards a two-year rolling programme on legislation, with the opportunity for Members and outside bodies to comment on draft legislation in advance of it being included in the subsequent Queen's Speech. That would make for better legislation, and it would have a better passage through the House. We are already in the second year of what might some day be a two-year rolling programme. Therefore, unless we bring forward for Second Reading debate and legislation the current Bills in the Queen's Speech, we shall have a long delay in introducing some measures that are very important to Members and their constituents.

John Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on domestic energy prices? Many pensioners in my constituency are facing a 25 per cent. increase in their gas bills because they are supplied by a dedicated subsidiary of Eastern. Eastern is itself owned by Texas, so decisions that are made thousands of miles away affect people living in Havering. This is all entirely due to privatisation and deregulation, which was brought about by the previous lot, but now we have to deal with it. May we have a debate or a statement?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the problems of pensioners, and he will be aware that we have set out a strategy for tackling fuel poverty among pensioners and others. The primary impetus behind the current round of gas price increases from last April was the increase in the wholesale price of gas, which distributors can no longer avoid passing on to consumers. The average increase has been not 25 per cent., but 5 per cent. and my hon. Friend may wish to draw that to the attention of his local distributor; and gas prices overall in the United Kingdom are still 10 per cent. down on what they were in May 1997. However, I fully appreciate that certain consumers such as pensioners are facing difficulties, which is why we are trying to target on them our strategy to try to end fuel poverty.

Tim Boswell: Would the Leader of the House consider an early debate on the state of industrial relations at the Post Office, because the other problems faced by that organisation affect us all and very few of them will be resolved until the underlying problems are tackled?

Robin Cook: These are problems that must be addressed by the Post Office and its unions: it is for them to try to seek to find a way forward. I am not persuaded that a debate in the House would necessarily help either side find a solution.

Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the activities of cable companies and other utilities? They are causing huge unnecessary disruption to road users, and I recently learned of the disruption that they are causing to our environment. They are digging up grass verges and not putting them back properly, which means that they cannot be cut, and sometimes they leave equipment around, causing thousands of pounds worth of damage. They are preventing grass verges from being cut right across Swindon, so may we please find time for a debate on the wider issues arising from the activities of cable companies and other utilities?

Robin Cook: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, as I almost missed the Cabinet meeting because of street works on my way there. Such works not only cause individuals enormous inconvenience, but are a big economic cost to the nation, estimated at £2.5 billion a year. We have just taken legal powers for local authorities to enter into contracts and deadlines with utilities carrying out street works, which provide for fines if the deadlines are not met. I am pleased to say that in the short time since those legal powers have been available, 100 local authorities have said that they intend to use them. I hope that that will result in an improvement, and will reduce disruption to the lives of constituents.

John Redwood: In view of the big climbdown on disability benefits that the Leader of the House has announced, cannot he see that there must be a ministerial statement to tell us why the Government trust existing but not future disability claimants? Will he give us an assurance that the Prime Minister will from now on visit the Terrace more often, in the hope that the Government's unpopular policies will be modified by such action?

Robin Cook: I would encourage all Members to visit the Terrace, and I hope to do so when we manage to conclude the pressing business of the Leader of the House over the past two weeks. I stress that the proposal on incapacity benefit is intended not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, to distress new claimants by putting them in a state of uncertainty, but to ensure that, if they wish and are able to do so, they can open the door to employment. Those who cannot work and are incapacitated will continue to get benefit and have nothing to fear.

John Grogan: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 42, on television coverage of the British Lions tour?
	[That this House notes that television viewers without access to subscription TV in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be unable to view even highlights of the Rugby Union test series between the British Lions and Australia; regrets the fact that BSkyB was prepared to do a deal involving highlights only with S4C and not the BBC; and urges the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to consider adding future test matches involving the British Lions to category B of the listed events which would mean highlights would be available to a wide audience.]
	I am concerned that, although Australian terrestrial television viewers have been able to see live coverage of the opening overs of the Ashes test series in the past couple of hours, terrestrial viewers in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland cannot see even the highlights of the British Lions' games. If there is not time for a debate on this important issue, will my right hon. Friend at least draw the early-day motion to the attention of the Secretary of State?

Robin Cook: I very much doubt whether a debate in the House would alter the grave situation to which my hon. Friend draws the House's attention. He has made his point, and I hope that it will be registered with the appropriate authorities.

Peter Robinson: Will the Leader of the House find an early opportunity for a debate on policing in Northern Ireland? He will be aware of the demoralisation of the police force in Northern Ireland, which has been accentuated by the recent discussions between the Government and republicans with a view to making further concessions to them. Such a debate would provide an early opportunity for the Government to set the Royal Ulster Constabulary's mind at rest and to make a statement on the long-term future of the RUC reserve.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter has been much debated in the House. We set up an independent commission to review the RUC. It made its report, and we have acted to implement its recommendations. Those actions were taken to encourage consensus and support for the RUC. I fear that we will have a number of opportunities in the immediate future to return to Northern Irish politics and issues, during which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends can make their comments on the police. As he will understand, the current priority of the Northern Ireland Office is to ensure that we cope with the difficult situation regarding the Good Friday agreement.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report published by Barnardo's yesterday called, "No son of mine! Children abused through prostitution"? It deals with the hidden problem of boys abused through prostitution. Many of those young people have run away from difficult situations at home or in care. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that important subject?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important and sensitive report on the problem of child prostitution. She will be aware that last year we issued guidelines on the handling of sex prostitution of young people. We stressed that in child prostitution the child should be regarded as the victim and those who exploit child prostitutes as the criminals. It is important that we target those who abuse vulnerable young people, and that we provide every possible opportunity to protect young people from such exploitation, and to be rehabilitated and returned from it when we find them.

Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement on the alleged dumping of poisonous combination ash at the Pitsea tip? This serious issue came to light in last night's edition of "Newsnight". May we be told whether the ash contains dioxins and other poisonous substances, as has been claimed? May we be told when the ash was first deposited, what controls have been applied since, when concerns were first raised, what investigations have been carried out, when the dumping was stopped, what assessment has been made of the impact on public safety and the environment in the communities of Benfleet and Canvey Island, what is the radius within which the risk might arise, and what action will be taken to remove these dangerous materials?

Robin Cook: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed when I say that I cannot answer each of his questions in full. I will, however, draw them to the attention of the Minister for the Environment, and encourage him to write fully to the hon. Gentleman.

David Drew: Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the refranchising of the railways, to establish what progress is being made? There is a particular problem with the Wessex franchise, which needs to be resolved quickly. I gather that the Secretary of State will make an announcement on 16 July; it would be very helpful if he also made a statement in the House.

Robin Cook: I have noted my hon. Friend's comments carefully, and I will draw what he said about the Wessex franchise to my right hon. Friend's attention. I am aware—partly from my constituency work—of the difficulties regarding investment in and development of the service that can arise from uncertainty about the future of franchises, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government understand the importance of making as reasonable progress as possible in providing certainty.

David Heath: Next week, the House will deal with the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Does the Leader of the House think—particularly in the light of his previous experience—that there is a case for changing the way in which the House considers the ratification of treaties? At present, we can consider only their legislative consequences. Should the House not have an opportunity to debate ratification on a substantive motion, which might give us more democratic legitimacy in the context of matters that are important to the country?

Robin Cook: That point has been at the heart of the debate about the powers of the House ever since I became a Member of Parliament. We have made some improvements, in that Select Committees can now take more of an interest and more of a scrutinising role in regard to treaties that the Government have undertaken to ratify. I think it important that when legislative change is involved it should be fully debated, as the Nice treaty is being debated on the Floor of the House.
	The hon. Gentleman invites me to reflect on the experience that I gained in my last post. I personally would regret it very much if the United Kingdom drifted into the situation in which the United States now finds itself. Treaties negotiated at length by the US Administration, and signed by them, are subsequently repudiated by Congress and Senate. I do not think that that has assisted the standing of the United States in international treaty negotiations, and I would not wish to put a British Prime Minister or Foreign Minister in the same position.

Shona McIsaac: Too many people are losing their homes, having made their mortgage repayments, because of our scandalously unfair and out-of-date leasehold laws. When will the leasehold reform Bill be put before us, so that we can protect and enhance the rights of home owners?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend knows that we committed ourselves to such legislation in the Queen's Speech. With respect, we have worked hard to ensure that we can deal with as many Bills as possible before the recess, but my hon. Friend will have to wait for this one until after it. I note what she has said about its being a priority, as, I am sure, has my noble Friend Lady Scotland, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department.

John Hayes: Could the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the provision of beta interferon? As he will know, the issue affects many of my constituents and those of other Members. I believe that when the drug would have an efficacious effect for multiple sclerosis it should be prescribed, and I know that many others agree. The Prime Minister was asked about the matter on three occasions. Each time, his answer was characterised by spin and prevarication. Is it not now time for action? Should not a statement be made in the House as soon as possible?

Robin Cook: I recall answering this question last week, or the week before.

John Bercow: Mine.

Robin Cook: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirms my memory, although it unaccountably slipped my mind that he had asked the question.
	I do not think that even the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) would say that my reply was characterised by spin. The fact is that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence rejected the view that the drug could be provided on the basis of clinical excellence and value for money. Essentially, NICE judges whether the health service should provide the drug, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
	In the past 50 minutes, there have been seven different requests for oral statements, which underlines the point that I made earlier: at some point, we have to strike a balance between oral statements and the business of the House.

David Chaytor: Two weeks ago, the Government announced a comprehensive review of energy policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is crucial to the future competitiveness of the economy and to the quality of the environment? Given that in the previous Parliament not a single debate, as I recall, was dedicated to energy policy, and given that there is a growing and urgent public debate about the future of nuclear energy, the need for investment in renewables and the Department of Trade and Industry's attitude to both forms of energy, does he agree that there should be a debate in Government time before the performance and innovation unit completes its report on energy policy?

Robin Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the energy review and its fundamental significance to both our industrial strength and our environmental health. I would be surprised if the review could be concluded and announced without giving the House a full opportunity to consider it, but I would take a bit of persuading that the right time to debate it was before the review, rather than after.

Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House has already been questioned on the subject of Marconi and spoken about his experiences with Motorola, but is not a pattern developing: international companies are making more job cuts in the United Kingdom than in continental Europe and elsewhere? Is that not a reflection of our fall in the world competitiveness league from ninth to 19th? May we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how she intends to redress that balance and to return us to the position that we enjoyed in 1997, when we were in ninth, not 19th, place?

Robin Cook: Those factors played no part in the decision of Motorola to locate in Germany. It did so because it had suffered large tax losses in Germany, which it wished to write off against future profits. That was its sole reason for going to Germany. Personally, I have always deprecated the fact that it took a decision affecting my constituents for reasons of tax management.
	On Marconi, as far as I am aware, we do not yet know how the job cuts will be distributed, but the company has committed itself to shedding 4,000 jobs throughout the world, not within the UK.

Owen Paterson: Sadly, the Prime Minister's home straight appears to be stretching out without apparent end. Some estimates suggest that foot and mouth has cost the country £20 billion. As problems rise in the rural economy, the pressure for a full public inquiry mounts inexorably. Why are the Government so pig-headed about that? Why is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs not coming here next week to announce a full impartial inquiry, under the chairmanship of an independent judge?

Robin Cook: The Secretary of State did come here only the other week and she made a full statement on foot and mouth. In the course of that, she made it clear that there would have to be an inquiry and that its terms would be announced at the end of the outbreak. That position is fully shared by many people in the industry, including the vets. When the foot and mouth outbreak is over, that will be the time to ensure that we carry out a full inquiry.

John Bercow: Given the welcome advances in medical science and the fact that, whenever a new cure is devised, a new queue is necessarily created, may we please have an urgent debate on the lessons that we can learn from our continental neighbours about the use of private resources to complement those of the public sector, in ensuring that we turn care from a word into a deed?

Robin Cook: I very much welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is willing to learn lessons from our European partners—a breakthrough on which we must try to build. I should remind him and other Members that our continental partners also make a heavy investment in public health provision. We must match that, as well as anything that we do in the private sector.

Speaker's Statement.

Mr. Speaker: We have a complicated day's business before us, so before calling the Minister to move the motion on the business of the House it may be helpful if I indicate how I propose to proceed—assuming, of course, that the motion is agreed to. I propose that motions Nos. 2 to 6, on the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body and related issues, should be debated together.
	At 4 o'clock, the question will be put on each motion in turn. Where I have selected an amendment to a motion, and the hon. Member proposing it wishes to press it to a vote, the House will vote first on the amendment and then on the motion, amended or not. A list of the selected amendments is available in the No Lobby and the Vote Office, in the normal way.

Win Griffiths: On a point order, Mr. Speaker, about today's Order Paper. On looking at it this morning, I expected to see my name on page 147 next to amendment (e) to the motion on the additional costs allowance, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), as I had agreed that it be added to the list of Members. It was not there. Instead, my name has been attributed to amendment (a) to the motion on pensions, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Under no circumstances did I ask for my name to be added to that list. I want to make it clear that there is a mistake on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that, because of a printing error, a number of Members' names were wrongly printed in support of Mr. Butterfill's amendment to motion No. 4, on parliamentary pensions. Those names should have been printed in support of Mr. Betts' amendment (e) to motion No. 2 on Members' allowances, insurance, and so on. The Table Office has copies of the corrected list.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not of course in any way consider questioning your selection of amendments, but in noting that two substantive amendments that I tabled were not selected, would it be sensible of me to assume that that might be because the issues with which they deal are expected to be covered by the Leader of the House in his opening remarks on the motion?

Mr. Speaker: That remains to be seen. The hon. Gentleman had best not assume anything—the amendments have not been selected.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance. My name appears next to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), in support of amendment (a) to motion No. 2. Even though the amendment has not been selected, will there be any opportunity to press the matter to which it relates to a Division this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Business of the House

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting—
	(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motions in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to—
	(a) recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body and related issues not later than Four o'clock; and
	(b) Select Committees and European Standing Committees not later than Seven o'clock; and
	proceedings on the Motions referred to in sub-paragraph (b) above may be concluded, though opposed, after Seven o'clock.
	(2) the Questions referred to in paragraph (1) shall include the questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.
	I shall be very brief as I do not wish to reduce the time available for debate on the important substantive business before the House.
	The motion on the Order Paper divides the day between two important matters. The time allocated should enable the House to give proper consideration to the motions. Both debates affect the working of the House and its Members. These are important debates, and they are being held in Government time. The business motion ensures that the House will resolve the issues today, so that any changes accepted by the House can be implemented quickly.
	This is the earliest opportunity since the election for the debate on the Senior Salaries Review Body recommendations. Members have had the opportunity to study the SSRB report and the motions have been carefully prepared. Members have had the opportunity to study them and—as some have—to table amendments to them. This is a cross-party issue which affects not just Members but our staff, and therefore the efficient working of the House.
	The further proposals regarding Select Committees reflect recent machinery of government changes, as well as extending new powers to the Committees. They pave the way for the Select Committees to be set up and to be up and running before the House rises for the summer recess. That will be the shortest period after an election in which the Committees have been established since the Select Committee system began.
	I hope that hon. Members will now allow both debates to commence. I commend the motion to the House.

Angela Browning: For future reference, given the number of amendments that have been tabled by Back Benchers, and selected by you, Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if such important matters were given more than just two and a half hours' debate on the Floor of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Members' Allowances, Insurance &c.

[Relevant documents: Review Body on Senior Salaries, Report No. 47, Review of Parliamentary Pension Scheme, Cm 4996; Review Body on Senior Salaries, Report No. 48, Review of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances, Cm 4997–I; Review Body on Senior Salaries, Report No. 48, Review of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances—Volume 2: Independent study on pay and allowances, Cm 4997–II; The Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) (Pension Sharing) Regulations 2001; The Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2001; The Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 2001; Second Report from the Information Committee, Session 1999–2000, on Information Technology Provision for Members, HC 758.]

Robin Cook: I beg to move,
	That, in the opinion of this House—
	(1) Provision should be made, with effect from 5th July 2001, to implement Chapter 3 of the report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on parliamentary pay and allowances (Cm 4997–1) a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, to establish a General Services Budget under the Members' Vote, and with regard to related matters;
	(2) These provisions should be applied as follows (subject to transitional arrangements under (5) and (6) below, and any directions which may from time to time be given by Mr. Speaker with regard to their application):
	(a) the salaries of staff employed by Members to help them in their duties as Members of Parliament, and pensions contributions equivalent to ten per cent. of each employee's salary, should be paid centrally by the Department of Finance and Administration;
	(b) all such staff who become employed by a Member should be employed on pay rates to be linked to job descriptions and standard contracts prepared by the Department of Finance and Administration;
	(c) the total costs of employing such staff, attributable to a particular Member, excluding the pension contribution outlined in (a) above should be limited to £60,000 a year (£70,000 a year where a Member represents a London constituency) these figures to be uprated annually to reflect changes in pay levels for equivalent jobs outside the House.
	(d) a new provision called an Incidental Expenses Provision should be established (at a rate of £14,000 per year for each Member, and uprated annually in line with the Retail Prices Index), to meet any other expenditure which Members may incur wholly necessarily and exclusively in discharging their duties as Members.
	(e) specific financial provisions should be made for the supply and maintenance of a standard package of information technology equipment and services for each Member to be used exclusively in discharging their duties as Members; and
	(f) the Office Costs Allowance should be abolished after a transitional period ending on 31st March 2003.

General Services Budget

(3) Central funding by way of a General Services Budget should provide for:
	(a) relevant training of Members and Members' staff in connection with their parliamentary duties;
	(b) any appropriate insurance provision;
	(c) any additional reimbursement of exceptional expenses incurred by Members who have constituencies with particular problems;
	(d) reasonable adjustments to the working conditions and equipment of Members with particular needs because of disability, and for necessary additional continuing costs;
	(e) any additional payments to Members in respect of safety precautions to safeguard their staff, their office equipment and themselves, where such safety precautions have been recommended by the police; and
	(f) other appropriate expenditure within the ambit of the Vote, under the authority of the Speaker.

Advisory Panel

(4)—(1) It should be the responsibility of a Panel appointed by Mr. Speaker to advise him on:
	(i) directions he may give as to the application of the provisions of this Resolution under paragraphs (2) and (3) above;
	(ii) his authorisation of expenditure not otherwise specified in this Resolution but within the ambit of the Vote, pursuant to paragraph (3)(f) thereof; and
	(iii) the application of the provisions of this Resolution to individual cases of difficulty.
	(2) The Panel should advise Mr. Speaker and the Leader of the House on the potential development of the arrangements made by or under the Resolutions in force from time to time regarding Members' allowances &c.

Transitional Provisions

(5) The following provisions should be made regarding the allowances of Members who, having sat in the previous Parliament, are returned to the present Parliament (subject to directions which may be given from time to time by Mr. Speaker with regard to application):
	(a) Members may, whether or not they take advantage of central Information Technology provision, opt to retain their entitlement to the Office Costs Allowance, payable at the level and subject to provisions for uprating in force at 1st April 2001;
	(b) Any reasonable contractual commitments entered into by Members who transfer to the new provisions in respect of staff and IT should be honoured through central funding until they can reasonably be terminated;
	But these provisions should cease to have effect from 1st April 2003.
	(6) Transitional provisions for all Members transferring to the new arrangements in 2001–02 should be determined by Mr. Speaker, having taken advice where appropriate from the Panel set up under paragraph (4) of this Resolution.

Winding Up Allowance

(7) In relation to the Winding Up Allowance, Subsection (3) of Part E of the Resolution of 13th July 1994 shall apply to Members who benefit from the provisions of paragraphs 2(a) to 2(d) of this Resolution as if for the words 'office costs allowance' there were substituted the words 'sum of the incidental Expenses Provision and the relevant staff employment cost limit in force at the time they ceased to be a Member'.

Members with Disabilities

(8) When provision is made in respect of any Members in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (3)(d) of this Resolution, any Resolution of this House entitling that Member to claim a multiple of the Office Costs Allowance shall cease to have effect.
	As Amendments to Mr. Robin Cook's Motion (Members' Allowances, Insurance &c.):

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:

Member's Pay (Expression of Opinion)

That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
	(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st March 2002 the salary of a Member shall be increased by £2,000 per annum.
	(2) That salary shall be increased by a further £2,000 per annum from 1st April 2002.
	(3) The increases referred to above shall be additional to any increase resulting from the operation of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996.

Parliamentary Pensions

That this House endorses the proposals for changes to the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme to give effect to recommendations 1, 3, 5, and 7 contained in the SSRB Report on the Scheme laid on 16th March 2001 and calls on the Trustees of the Scheme to consider how best to implement recommendation 2 but at no additional cost to the Exchequer and to consider recommendations 4, 6 and 8.
	And that this House further endorses the proposals for changes in this scheme and the avc scheme pursuant to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 in relation to pension sharing on divorce.

Members' Insurance: Reimbursement of Costs Incurred by the Right Honourable Member for Blackburn

That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made to reimburse the Right honourable Member for Blackburn for reasonable legal expenditure including damages arising in consequence of an action brought against him alleging vicarious liability for an act of negligence committed in the course of his duties as a Member of this House.

Members' Pay (Money Resolution)

That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
	(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st March 2002 the salary of a Member shall be increased by £2,000 per annum.
	(2) That salary shall be increased by a further £2,000 per annum from 1st April 2002.
	(3) The increases referred to above shall be additional to any increase resulting from the operation of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996.

Robin Cook: The motions are to give effect to the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on Members' pay, pensions and office costs allowance. They neither add to nor subtract in any substantial way from the totality of the SSRB recommendations. I have followed the principle that the Government should put before the House all the recommendations as proposed by the SSRB in order that the House itself can make a judgment on them. The large number of amendments tabled clearly demonstrates that the House is keenly interested in the matter and wants to come to a judgment on the recommendations.
	It is right that our salaries should be assessed independently. It must also be right that the independent assessment should generally be accepted by the House. The proposed increase is necessary to restore parity with the other posts in the public sector adopted in 1996 as the comparators to ours: a director of a district general hospital, a head teacher of a secondary school or a chief superintendent of police.
	The proposed increase is wholly in line with the general principle set out by the previous Government, and entirely shared by this Government, that the pay of Members of Parliament should not be so high as to become the primary attraction of the job, nor so low as to deter suitable candidates from standing for election. I do not think that we impress the public if we set too low a value on our own worth. I would not go quite so far as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)'s famous observation that the
	"post of MP attracts the average pay of a saxophonist with the job security of a football manager",
	but I do believe that we should not sell ourselves too short. If we believe that our work here is important, we should not shrink from putting a proper value on it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has tabled an amendment proposing that our annual uprating be tied to the increases recommended for nurses, teachers and doctors. Since 1996, our salaries have been uprated in parallel with pay in the senior civil service. Had his formula applied since 1996, our current pay would be almost £2,000 a year higher. I am not sure whether it was his intention to secure an even higher rate of pay for Members of Parliament, and if it was not, he may wish to reconsider the terms of his amendment.

Chris Mullin: My aim was to relate our pay to professions that are meaningful to our constituents. Had my formula applied before July 1996, when we awarded ourselves an outrageous 26 per cent. increase, our pay would now be significantly lower.

Robin Cook: The 1996 increase was the result of an independent assessment and reflected the fact that there had been no annual uprating by formula in the years preceding it. If my hon. Friend's intention is that we should be paid at the same rate as those in professions with which the public can identify, I am pleased to assure him that the logical step is to support the motion, which will give us precisely the 19 per cent. increase that nurses, teachers and doctors have enjoyed since 1996.
	I turn now to parliamentary pensions, on which the SSRB made eight recommendations. The motion before the House would implement all the recommendations on which a decision of the House is now possible, and it invites the trustees of the pension fund to consider the remaining matters on which further work is required. That further work will include consideration of recommendation 8, which covers the question of pensions for unmarried partners surviving Members of Parliament and to which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has tabled an amendment.
	I should say a word about the second recommendation of the SSRB, which proposed that we drop the provision in the pension scheme that the pension of widows or widowers is withdrawn in the event of their remarriage. The House will be aware that the Government announced in March that they could not accept that recommendation. In the light of representations that I have received, we have looked at the matter again.
	Personally, I find the provision to withdraw pension from widows and widowers who remarry old fashioned, to put it mildly. The motion before the House therefore invites the trustees to consider making changes in line with the recommendation, but at no cost to the Treasury.
	As I am about to turn to one of the more controversial issues, may I, lest I lose my audience, first invite consensus from across the House in paying tribute to the trustees of our pension fund? All hon. Members owe a debt of gratitude to those of our number who are willing to serve as trustees. Under the leadership of John MacGregor, they have taken major steps to modernise the scheme in line with good practice, and have put it under proper professional management. I am pleased to report that the fund has been managed with a satisfactory surplus.
	In their submission to the SSRB, the trustees proposed that the accrual rate should be cut from one fiftieth to one fortieth of the annual salary. I understand the reasoning that led them to propose a faster rate of accrual in the light of the unpredictability of a parliamentary career. At the present rate of accrual, fewer than 10 per cent. of hon. Members make it to the maximum pension before they retire from the House.
	Nevertheless, having considered the proposal, the SSRB explicitly rejected the submission by the trustees. In its report, it submits that the current accrual rate of one fiftieth of annual salary is already better than comparable private sector schemes, and significantly better than the overwhelming majority of public sector schemes, in which an accrual rate of better than one sixtieth is an exception.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend has already noted that the average career expectancy of Members of Parliament is about nine and a half years, so does he agree that the comparison with groups in the private or public sectors is therefore invalid?

Robin Cook: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is very close to the one that I made earlier to the House. At this point, I should declare an interest as, in the course of this Parliament, I will achieve qualification for the maximum pension.

John Bercow: No.

Robin Cook: Indeed I will, and the fact unfortunately confirms the suggestion that I am nearing my obituary. However, I shall be one of only 8 per cent. of hon. Members who make it to that qualification. I have achieved it only because I have been blessed with constituents of judicious judgment. That is not the experience of every Member of the House.
	The SSRB points out, however, that other profession also suffer from unpredictability and uncertainty. In the modern age, it felt unable to take that fact into account.

Bill Etherington: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Robin Cook: I will give way on this occasion, but I have a number of matters to deal with.

Bill Etherington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the accrual rate for serving Members of Parliament in the Republic of Ireland is one fortieth of annual salary?

Robin Cook: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I am not sure that I necessarily wish to accept the principle that we should read across to our own package any particular element of the package in other Parliaments. If we did, we might well find ourselves to be disadvantaged in other respects.
	As I said, it is for the House to decide whether to accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).

Eric Martlew: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point? I am one of the pension fund trustees.

Robin Cook: I shall certainly give way to one of the trustees, but then I must conclude on pensions.

Eric Martlew: The House passed a similar amendment in 1980 but, on that occasion, the Government came back and blocked it. What are the Government's intentions if the House passes the amendment today?

Robin Cook: This is a matter for the House to decide, and the House's decision will be one that I personally would take as binding on me as Leader of the House. I would not argue with that judgment. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] But—[Laughter]—since I have been generous in giving that assurance to the House as Leader, I would ask the House to consider the advice that I am about to offer it.
	We would ask hon. Members, before taking their decision, to reflect on whether Members of Parliament can accept an even wider gap than already exists in the rate of accrual between our pension scheme and the schemes of those who work in our hospitals, schools and local authorities. My colleagues at the Treasury attach particular weight to the public spending consequences if the accrual rate in the amendment were to become general across the public sector.

John Butterfill: Could I say first that although the amendment stands in my name, it does so on behalf of all the trustees? Our soon to be ennobled Friend, Mr. MacGregor, is not able to attach his name, although he remains chairman of the trustees. All the other trustees of the fund support the amendment. As I wish to show later in the debate, ours is actually the meanest accrual rate of any assembly anywhere in the western world.

Robin Cook: I have noted that the trustees have all signed the amendment and that they made a submission to the SSRB precisely in the terms of the amendment. I spoke yesterday with John MacGregor and it is only fair to report to the House that he fully shares the views expressed in the amendment.
	Nevertheless, the fact remains that when that submission was put to the SSRB, it was not persuaded by the proposal and did not accept the basis of the argument put forward. The SSRB drew particular attention, as my right hon. Friends at the Treasury have done vigorously, to the fact that that would create a quite remarkable difference between our pension scheme and others in the public sector. Hon. Members have to reflect on whether they are willing to contemplate the public spending consequences of making a comparable change in those schemes.
	There is no report before the House on the additional costs allowance. However, I recognise the widespread feeling among Members that the present allowance does not reflect the current realities of the London housing market. This is a particular problem for new Members seeking accommodation for the first time at current rates.
	An amendment has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), and many, many other Members. If I understood the point of order earlier, many other Members who have not yet got their name on to the Order Paper also support it. This, again, is a House of Commons matter on which the House must make its own decision. However, the terms of the amendment would result in a very large increase indeed and would produce a new ceiling of £19,300, an increase of 42 per cent.
	I fully understand why some Members demand parity with the new overnight allowance recommended for the House of Lords and define parity as 144 nights at £120. However, under the amendment as drafted, we would end up with £2,000 more a year than such parity with the House of Lords allowance would afford. This, I suspect, would be challenging to explain to Members of the House of Lords, let alone to justify to members of the public. But as I said, I recognise that there is a problem with the additional costs allowance. For some years, it has been uprated only in line with the retail prices index, while the London housing market has tended to uprate itself faster than RPI.

Clive Betts: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware of the calculations for the last financial year, which show, essentially, that the House of Lords overnight allowance was £84. If one divided the additional costs allowance by the number of days Parliament sat, it came to about £83. Proposing the same proportionate increase would mean that when the total additional costs allowance is divided by the number of days Parliament sits, it comes out at the same figure.
	Page 44 of the second volume of the SSRB report states that three-star hotel accommodation has been the traditional way of judging both the overnight allowance for the Lords and the ACA for the Commons. There is the same basis for both schemes, but one is to get an increase this time while the other does not.

Robin Cook: The issue of principle does not turn the calculation, but the figure I have just mentioned would be the consequence of my hon. Friend's amendment. We would end up with an additional costs allowance of £19,300, which is well above what would be required to meet 144 nights at the overnight allowance of £120 for Members of the House of Lords.
	I understand the concern that lies behind my hon. Friend's amendment. I personally would regard it as unfortunate if the House were to depart from the principle that, before increasing our pay or personal allowances, we should first invite assessment by the independent review body. I give an undertaking to the House that, in the event of Members rejecting this amendment, the Government will refer the issue of the additional costs allowance to the SSRB and will invite it to report on an appropriate revised ceiling, as a matter of urgency. That will give us a revised ceiling that will reflect reality and—as a result of independent assessment—will also be one that we can defend.
	I turn now to the resolution on Members' allowances and insurance. Let me dispose first of the provision for appropriate insurance. It is a matter of regret that we live in an age which is increasingly litigious, and I have to report that Members of Parliament also are victims of the increasing tendency to sue. Last year, the issue came before the House as the result of an action for defamation brought against an Opposition Member. The House then resolved to make general provision for insurance against action for defamation and to cover the Member for his costs.
	This year, the matter comes before the House again because of a legal action claiming negligence against my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I have set out some of the facts of that case in a written answer, and as a legal settlement of the action has yet to be reached, the House will understand if I cannot enlarge on that.
	In any case, the particular facts of the case are not the key issue. The central point is that what has happened to my right hon. Friend could have happened to many Members of the House. We all prize the hard work of our constituency staff, but with the best will in the world they can make mistakes under pressure. In today's litigious world we all face the risk of being sued for their mistakes. In most other professions, insurance cover against such a legal risk is routine and Members of Parliament should have the same protection.
	The resolution before the House will ensure that all Members are provided with insurance cover against claims for negligence, as well as claims for defamation. That will provide future cover for any Members who find themselves in the same position as my right hon. Friend. It would be unfair to leave my right hon. Friend with any liability that arose from the conduct of his constituency duties, and the separate resolution compensates him for any reasonable costs of the present action. I hope that this resolution will receive all-party support in the same spirit as the resolution compensating the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) last year.
	I turn now to the office costs allowance, on which the SSRB proposed sweeping changes. At the outset, I would ask the House to recognise that those changes are so sweeping that—unavoidably—issues will arise in the light of experience that will require adjustment. Indeed, some of the amendments on the Order Paper already highlight problems on which the SSRB report does not offer specific guidance. A good case in point is the amendment from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on the use of the staff element to pay for research on a consultancy basis.
	We therefore believe that it will be essential to provide more flexibility in the system in order that modest adjustments can be made without the cumbersome procedure of a further review by the SSRB. The resolution therefore proposes that there should be a Speaker's advisory panel to supervise the transition and to advise on the implementation of the new system. The panel will combine cross-party membership with senior officials who can advise on the practical implications of our conclusions.
	The resolution also gives authority to the Speaker to make directions as necessary, and those will, of course, be published for Members of the House. That will assist the authorities in responding to the detailed problems that will inevitably occur in phasing in such a radically different system, and in resolving individual cases of difficulty.
	The new system represents a radical overhaul of the way in which we fund support for Members in pursuit of their constituency and parliamentary duties. Although it has been proposed by the SSRB, it follows from extensive evidence from Members of the House, and remedies much of the frustration that Members have expressed with the present system.
	The new package gives three major benefits. First, Members' staff will be put on a consistent and fair salary structure for the first time since Members started to hire staff.
	Secondly, all Members will have access to a standard package of IT equipment that will guarantee them access to the latest technology in a compatible format.
	Finally, the overall effect of the package will be a substantial increase in the resources available to Members.

Michael Fabricant: While he is on the subject of IT equipment, will the Leader of the House give way?

Robin Cook: I shall come to that later, and I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman then.
	The financial equivalent of the new package will total about £80,000 for most Members.
	The previous system needed fundamental reform. It was hard to justify a system which led some Members with heavy case loads to rely on volunteers and foreign interns because they could not afford enough permanent staff. It was even harder to justify a system that obliged a number of Members to dig into their own pockets to make up the pay of their staff. Nor can we justify trading on the high motivation of our staff by paying them at a lower rate.
	I am well aware that many Members, particularly new Members, face pressing decisions on the recruitment of staff. I have therefore tabled this resolution, and the other resolutions before the House, to have immediate effect. The result is that, from today, Members will be entitled to a pro rata share of the new annual allowances for staff pay.
	The resolution puts before the House the new ceilings proposed by the SSRB—an annual ceiling of up to £70,000 for Members with a London constituency, and £60,000 for Members with a constituency anywhere else. The differential is the single issue on which I have received most representations from hon. Members, and I am not in the least surprised that it has attracted an amendment. The Government are not offering any advice to the House in respect of the amendments to the resolution that have been tabled; they are matters for House to resolve.
	It is plainly right that the ceiling for London Members should reflect the higher staff costs that they must necessarily pay in the London labour market. However, many Members with constituencies outside London also employ staff at Westminster. It is a fact of geography that Westminster is in inner London, and all members of staff employed at Westminster will be paid at the same higher London rate, whatever the constituency of their employer. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) therefore offers a pro rata increase in the ceiling for Members from outside London who employ staff at Westminster.

Alan Duncan: Will the Leader of the House comment on the two amendments that I tabled? They have not been selected for debate, but the right hon. Gentleman may be able to satisfy the House on their subject matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Leader of the House will not comment on amendments that have not been selected.

Robin Cook: I may be able to help the House—

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I understood that, although amendments that have not been selected cannot be pressed to a Division, they can be debated.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman changes his wording and talks about the substance of the matter, that might be better.

Robin Cook: rose—

Alan Duncan: Will the Leader of the House give way so that I can ask him to comment on an issue that has arisen in the midst of the debate? The SSRB suggests a ceiling of £60,000, but it would appear that its arithmetic relates to the headline salaries, which when added together already reach that ceiling. National insurance contributions do not appear to be included. Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore consider allowing those contributions to be paid centrally?
	Secondly, given that the proposals may involve a number of Members shifting some of their staff and some of the functions of their staff from Westminster to their constituency, it is inevitable that some people may be made redundant. For the sake of our staff—not for us—will the right hon. Gentleman therefore contemplate making statutory redundancy pay provided for centrally?

Robin Cook: I may not be able to help the hon. Gentleman on his first point, but I can clarify matters. It is important that right hon. and hon. Members should understand what is proposed in the tables of the Senior Salaries Review Body's report. It sets out staff pay rates and makes it quite explicit that the employer's national insurance contribution should also fall to be paid out of the overall ceiling—in other words, the £60,000 for Members outside London and £70,000 for Members inside London must also provide the payment for national insurance contributions by employers. It is important for right hon. and hon. Members to reflect on this point. That 10 per cent. contribution can make quite a significant difference to the final year outturn, as I know to my cost from previous experience.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the standard position is quite clear and does not change with the SSRB report, as far as I understand it. If staff are faced with redundancy as a result of their Member losing his or her seat, redundancy payments will be met. If they are made redundant as a result of the Member restructuring the office—for example, moving it from the constituency to Westminster—that cost falls to be met out of the allowances.
	I appreciate that, in phasing in the new system, there will be particular cases to consider. That is why we have taken the power, through the Speaker's advisory panel, to make sure that we can be flexible, and that where there are bona fide cases, we can respond to individual difficulties. In addition, I stress that there is a transitional period. Until April 2003, right hon. and hon. Members can continue with the present arrangement before transferring, and that should help to ease some of the transition problems.
	I should like to move on from the ceilings to the new arrangements for incidental expenses.

Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend give way before he moves on?

Robin Cook: Of course.

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It would help the House if he clarified how staff salaries can be protected in the future. We know what is on offer as of today, but can my right hon. Friend assure us that staff salaries will be protected throughout this Parliament and into the future?

Robin Cook: I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend an assurance if he is referring to future uprating. That lies in the hands of Hay Management Consultants, the SSRB and the authorities. However, it is not our intention to allow Members' staff to suffer. Indeed, my overall impression from the proposals is that the majority of staff will welcome the proposals and package, and will also, in many cases, benefit from the rates of pay set out in the appendix.
	If my hon. Friend means by his question to ensure that Members' staff will not face a decrease in pay, I draw his attention to that part of the SSRB report in which the point is made that some Members' staff may have a higher rate of pay at present than allowed for in the appendix. In such circumstances, the SSRB recommended that their pay should be frozen until such time as the pay levels caught up.
	As I stressed earlier, this is a radically different system. On balance, it will be better for Members and for their staff. There will be some awkward and difficult cases, which is why it is important that we provide ourselves with some flexibility to respond to individual circumstances.
	I was about to turn to the incidental expenses allowance.

Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Robin Cook: This must be the last time or else we will never finish, and I am conscious that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.

Michael Spicer: If salaries are to be decreased and there is a review clause in the contract, what will happen to the contract?

Robin Cook: The SSRB report contains a specific proposal that where there is any legal contractual responsibility, the Fees Office should be able to assist with it. However, I stress that I do not envisage the outcome of these changes to be that Members' staff face a decrease in pay. At most, there may be a necessary period of transition in which they wait until the pay scales catch up. For most Members' staff the rates set out will represent an increase, not a decrease.
	I must make progress if the House is to debate these motions. The incidental expenses allowance is set by the SSRB at £14,000. "Incidental" possibly does not do justice to the essential items which this budget must cover, including office rent and rates. The figure proposed by the SSRB incorporates an estimate of constituency spending as assessed by Hay Management Consultants. However, many Members, and if I am frank, my own constituency staff, have questioned whether this figure adequately provides for all the items that Members may have to meet in the course of a full and unpredictable financial year.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush has an amendment to the ceiling on incidental expenses. It is for Members to reach their own judgment on that amendment in the light of their own practical experience of running constituency offices.
	One problem of the previous system, which Members will know from practical experience, was that a capital purchase could knock a big hole in that year's allowance. One major gain from the new package is that we will never again have to weigh the necessity of purchasing a new computer against the amount that would be left over for staff pay. The new package responds to frequent representations by Members that we should move to centrally funded and managed procurement of IT equipment. Under the terms of the resolution—

Roger Gale: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Robin Cook: I have already given a commitment to make progress.
	Under the terms of the resolution every Member will be entitled to three personal computers, one laptop and two combined printer/scanner/copier/fax machines.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the IT equipment will at all times be owned by the House of Commons authorities? He will be aware that at the time of the dissolution of Parliament for a general election former Members are not allowed access to House facilities. Does that mean that desktop computers in one's constituency and possibly one's laptop allocated by the House of Commons authority under the scheme would be repossessed for the duration of the general election, in which case we would have to buy ourselves a separate machine?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is correct on his first point: the equipment, having been purchased by the House, will belong to the House and not to individual Members. However, it will be at the disposal of the individual Member until the end of any general election. I stress that it is part of the provision that it should be used only for parliamentary functions, not party political purposes. While it may be right that a Member's staff should continue to deal with constituency correspondence during an election, equipment should not be used for election purposes. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see that all Members of the House are nodding sagely in agreement.
	These items will be provided centrally by the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, which will also provide free installation at Westminster or in the constituency, free training on the equipment and free maintenance.

Peter Luff: rose—

Robin Cook: I will give way, but this must be the last time because I have already taken up one fifth of the time available for debate.

Peter Luff: It is my understanding that the House authorities have anticipated the passage of this motion in relation to procurement and have already entered into a contract with Compaq. The Leader of the House knows that I have in my constituency a major computer manufacturer, evesham.com, which makes the Vale range of computers. It was excluded from bidding for the contract. Indeed, I think that all other manufacturers were also excluded. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Government Members do not think that public procurement should be conducted openly. It should be, as an amendment on the Order Paper suggests. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment that next time there will be a full, open advertisement for this procurement process and that all manufacturers will be able to bid for the right to supply the House?

Robin Cook: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that his constituents have heard it also. I assure the House that the arrangement has been made through standard public procurement rules, albeit by a process of negotiation, not necessarily open tender. If in future a better package becomes available, it must be considered. That stands to reason.
	I commend the Fees Office and the Parliamentary Communications Directorate on the work that they have already done to ensure that we can implement the plans once we have taken a decision. We are facing a massive new logistical exercise which will require the installation of possibly 4,000 items of kit in more than 600 locations. Hon. Members will be able to work out for themselves that that will not happen instantaneously, so I hope that the whole House will understand if we give preference to new Members who have come into the House with no office equipment.
	Before concluding, may I say that I would regard it as wholly unfair if tomorrow the increases in our office costs were written up as some kind of perk? No other profession, even including—dare I say it?—newspaper editors would expect the reasonable costs of a secretary and a word processor to be treated as if they were part of their personal remuneration. Nor should MPs. Our staff are there not as a perk to us, but as a service to our constituents. We will be better able to provide that service to our constituents as a result of the proposals of the SSRB.
	Although Members may differ from the review body on a number of points of detail, I hope that, in the following debate, we shall not let that obscure the broad welcome for the major improvements of the new package. It represents a radical reform of the way in which our offices are supported. It will bring our offices up to date in access to modern technology. Furthermore, it will ensure that the staff who work hard for us and for our constituencies will get a fair rate for the job. The overhaul is long overdue and I commend it to the House.

Angela Browning: I shall try not to detain the House unnecessarily, as the matter is one for the House and Back Benchers have tabled amendments to which they want to speak. However, it is important that I raise at the beginning of the debate the points to which I want the Leader of the House to respond at its conclusion, so that we have a record of answers on some unclear issues.
	In relation to the ring-fenced budget for staff employment, the Leader of the House referred to appendix E in the SSRB report. Paragraph 3.12 of the report describes that appendix as "a possible guide". Nothing in the motion suggests that the Government have adopted the guide printed in appendix E. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the pay rates attached to the job descriptions in the appendix are in fact the rates that the Government are recommending in the ring-fenced budgets of £60,000 and £70,000? If they are, the sums do not add up.
	Let us examine the recommended pay scales together with the review body's statement that such a level of staff remuneration would enable an MP to employ up to the equivalent of three full-time staff, who I accept may not all be London based. When the employer's national insurance contribution of 10 per cent. is subtracted from £60,000 gross, we are left with £54,000 net, which means that there is no way that a Member could employ two senior and one junior full-time members of staff as the report recommends. That is why I, like the Members who have tabled amendments, press the Leader of the House seriously to consider meeting centrally the deduction of £6,000 for the employer's national insurance contribution. If that is not done, the figures will not add up. I should be happy to go through the sums with the House, but if Members have a copy of the report, they will be able to see for themselves.
	I refer the Leader of the House to changes made to the arrangements in the Scottish Parliament last month whereby employers' national insurance contributions are met centrally for staff employed by Members of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to follow that precedent.

John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the issue is complicated by the use of median rates, which represent the middle of the band? Some hon. Members have staff of long standing who have been in the House for many years, and they will be at the higher rates of pay, especially if the Member has been here for a long time, so the adding up becomes even worse at the higher end of the band. Furthermore, the rates of pay were assessed in October 2000, so a year will have passed by the time they are implemented, and they are out of date already.

Angela Browning: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I want to pick up the issue that he has just raised, to which the Leader of the House referred in respect of existing contracts that are well above the rates recommended in appendix E. Although the Leader of the House rightly said that transitional arrangements would be available, I am not sure about the suggestion that, under an existing contract of employment, it would be possible to demand that staff accept a pay freeze until the rates equalise. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is sure about that either and if he is not, we need to take specific legal advice. An employer may not be able to honour annual increments as outlined in contracts of employment because of financial constraints, but I am not sure whether we can legally demand a pay freeze on existing contracts. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reassure the House that legal advice is being sought from employment lawyers on that very important point.
	In section 3.16, the report suggests that Members could also make ad hoc payments to cover research and staff absences from the gross figures of £60,000 and £70,000. Many Members use secretarial bureaux from time to time and have an ad hoc input from data processors, and even more pressure is put on the gross figure when that is taken into account. I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider whether we should have to accommodate the 10 per cent. employer's national insurance contribution in the gross figure.

Nick Palmer: I have been trying to follow the hon. Lady's figures, and I am a little puzzled by her statement that the review body's report does not envisage staffing arrangements that can be included in the £60,000 sum. In section 5.8 on page 29 of volume 2, the review body offers four different arrangements, all of which it suggests would be suitable.

Angela Browning: I was referring to the appendix that the Leader of the House mentioned. I assumed that it was appendix E, which shows the Hay scale—six different job descriptions with separate London and regional rates. The SSRB recommends that a Member should be able to employ three full-time equivalent staff—two at a senior level and one at a more junior level.
	Let me use the inner London scales to make my point. The appendix suggests that it would cost £28,500 and £27,000 respectively to employ two people, one at the executive secretary/PA rate and a one at the research assistant or constituency assistant rate, which are not the very highest rates. In other words, it would cost £55,500 to employ just those two people. That does not leave room for a full-time equivalent post, even at the bottom of the regional rate—a constituency assistant with a recommended salary of £12,500 on that scale. That is why I seek clarification.
	If we are working to the pay scales outlined in appendix E, it is very difficult, taking into account employer's NICs, to meet the SSRB's requirement that we should employ two full-time equivalent staff at a senior level and one at a more junior level. Even using the regional, outside London, rates, it is difficult to fulfil those criteria.

Nick Palmer: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Browning: I shall give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I want Back Benchers to contribute to the debate and to have their say.
	If we are working to appendix E, the arithmetic is very simple. If we are working to a different scale, it is a different matter. There is reference to the fact that the SSRB also considered the rates recommended by the Transport and General Workers Union. When we talk about the gross sums and employing three full-time equivalent staff, we need to know which scales and which recommendations we are considering, especially as that is not made clear on the Order Paper. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that I have understood him correctly and that we are considering the pay scales as recommended in appendix E of the report. Does the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) still want to intervene?

Nick Palmer: indicated dissent

Angela Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
	Moving on to the transitional arrangements, I have already mentioned the fact that some hon. Members are concerned about existing contracts and the recommended rates, but I wonder whether the Leader of the House will clarify what the position will be for existing shared staff. Sometimes a senior secretary will work part time for two Members, but the pro rata part-time rate is not exactly 50 per cent. of that for a full-time equivalent post. In most workplaces with jobs that command lower salaries, the pro rata rates for part-time staff are often exactly 50 per cent. if the job is done for exactly half the time. In more demanding jobs, often to attract part-time staff, more than 50 per cent. of the full-time equivalent rate has to be paid. That is already the case in some contracts where two Members share a secretary. For those people, the gross salary that the secretary receives from two Members is higher than the rates outlined in appendix E. Again, apart from the problem of hon. Members employing someone on much higher rates, hon. Members seek clarification of those shared arrangements, as well as the shared arrangements for equipment that also exist in some cases.
	I shall now deal with the incidental expenses provision. It is extremely good that the right hon. Gentleman has aggregated the £9,000 and the £5,000 sums and put more flexibility into the provision. I thoroughly support that proposal, and I am very much aware of the amendment under which that sum would be increased to £18,000. Every hon. Member's arrangements will be different, but there is concern about those who may have a set up a constituency parliamentary office from scratch, or who do not have the opportunity to share such a facility, perhaps with an existing association office.
	Taking out a lease and all that goes with it can be quite challenging for anyone in business, but from our point of view, taking on a lease on premises out of that budget could cause some problems. For example, full-repairing leases are often used. In other words, at some time during the tenancy, one must carry out repairs to the roof or overall decoration inside and outside the premises. The normal running costs may be deemed to be £14,000—or perhaps the House will agree to £18,000 today. Bearing in mind the fact that I believe that we still cannot carry forward surpluses year on year to budget for a bill that we know comes up every four or five years—for example, to fulfil the requirements of a full-repairing lease—I wonder how hon. Members might meet those obligations under normal commercial leasing conditions.

Roger Gale: The Leader of the House said in his opening remarks that he had effectively been subsidising his constituency operation out of his own income. That is probably true for very many hon. Members. The provisions before the House distinguish between those Members with staff in London and those outside London, but no provision is made for those Members who choose—it is a choice—to have their offices outside the House of Commons and who do not therefore benefit from the space, heating, lighting, telephones or any of the other equipment provided in the House. I have chosen to subsidise my constituency office to the tune of about £10,000 a year for the past 15 years. I wonder whether there should be some flexibility in the arrangements to make provision for those who choose to have their entire operation outside the House rather than in it.

Angela Browning: I am sure the Leader of the House will respond to that point. I understand that the flexibility built into the general services budget would allow for that. It is based on the fact that people need a constituency base, whether it is physically in the constituency or not. That sum has been identified by the SSRB as meeting some of the costs that my hon. Friend mentioned.
	I have raised the matter of insurance privately with the Leader of the House, and I would like his reassurance on the record. He mentioned insurance in relation to indemnity for MPs, and I totally agree with the proposal on the Order Paper, particularly in respect of the Foreign Secretary. However, if one sets up an office in a constituency, one requires employers' insurance to cover employees and public liability insurance for people coming into the premises.
	Are all those costs to be met centrally on behalf of all Members, regardless of the location of their offices, or would such insurance have to be purchased separately out of the incidental expenses provision? If it were provided centrally, it would clearly not be such a liability and the House could presumably negotiate a good deal because the contract would be large. If MPs had to purchase insurance policies individually, they would represent a charge on the incidental expenses provision.

James Paice: Will my hon. Friend also impress on the right hon. Gentleman the anomaly that, despite the proposals providing for up to three full-time staff and the equipment for them, many of us do not have the space in this building in which to put them? Parts of the new buildings provide suitable facilities for more than one member of staff for most Members, but Members who are in this building are entitled to only one desk. That is not adequate for the secretaries and equipment with which the motion seeks to provide us.

Angela Browning: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the Leader of the House has taken his concerns on board. We are all concerned about that. After nine years in Parliament, I do not think the problem of how and where staff are accommodated is getting any easier, despite the fact that we now have Portcullis House.
	The Leader of the House will be aware of the amendments tabled by many hon. Members relating to the information technology package. I am concerned about the public tendering procedure that has been used. I am even more concerned that the equipment has been procured with, as I understand it, no reference to the needs of Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament, the users—the customers, as it were—have not been consulted on the package.

Richard Allan: For the hon. Lady's information, there was very close co-operation on these proposals throughout the previous Parliament between the Officers of the House and the members of the Information Committee. The Committee—working on a cross-party basis and including the former Member for South Dorset, Ian Bruce—was fully behind the proposals. The Officers were very careful to ask Members, as representatives of that Committee, what they wanted.

Angela Browning: The package of kit might have been the subject of consultation, but the procurement of specific brands was certainly not. As I understand it, the report that the Information Committee produced, which was considered by the SSRB, says quite clearly that Members sought a choice. Members have not had a choice, particularly in relation to branding. We had hoped for a menu of brands from which Members could choose. In fact, that did not happen. I raise that matter with the Leader of the House because that is not the way to procure such equipment in future. We are all, as end users, entitled to a say in what our preferences and needs are.
	The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the work done by the Parliamentary Data and Video Network in trying to procure the information technology package. However, in response to many Conservative Back Benchers' comments, I must say to him that if PDVN is to have such an executive role in the procurement and management of IT in the House, it will have to raise its game in terms of consumer service and consumer awareness. It must provide a flexible, high-quality service to Members. The Leader of the House might wish to consider this matter separately and take soundings from Members across the House about the level of service that we get. All too often we are greeted by answerphones, and it often takes a long time for phone calls to be returned when there is a problem. If this were a commercial environment, customers would be leaving in their droves. I hope that the Leader of the House will now guarantee to do something about the service; it has to become customer-oriented.

Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the House is still sitting after 6 o'clock, there is only one person on the Parliamentary Communications Directorate helpdesk because adequate funds are not being made available by the House authorities to the PCD? I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that, as we have an almost 24-hour job, the PCD will be able to provide an almost 24-hour service.

Angela Browning: I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that it will be a high priority for him personally to ensure that this matter of great concern to Members will be dealt with as effectively and quickly as possible.

Clive Soley: I am aware of the constraints—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I must say to the House that we must deal with the motions before us, and not other matters that have been raised during interventions. Also, I am keen to call as many hon. Members as possible to speak. For that, I need the co-operation of the House, and I would expect brief contributions.

Clive Soley: I was about to say that I was very aware of the constraints of time. It will be very difficult to fit everyone in, so I shall focus most of my comments on the amendments tabled in my name. However, if I may, I shall also make a couple of opening comments.
	First, I welcome the latest report from the SSRB and thank the board for it. I felt that it had got the previous one wrong, but it has got this one largely right. Perhaps I would say that, because the report largely follows the evidence that I gave on behalf of the parliamentary Labour party. It also represents a radical break from the past, gives a far better service to MPs and enables them to serve their constituents better, while entrenching the rights and privileges of our staff, on whom we depend so much and who have been seriously undervalued, underestimated and under-protected in the past.
	Secondly, measures of this nature are inevitably extremely complicated, especially when making a change of the kind that I recommended and that the SSRB is following. We shall not be able to cross all the t's or dot all the i's in this debate, and one of the things that I most welcome—perhaps we can refer to this on other occasions—is the setting up of a Speaker's advisory panel to include Members of Parliament. We shall then be able to iron out many of the problems as we proceed over the next year or two. I will mention one of those problems in a moment—the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has already mentioned one or two—but we should not try to solve them all here now, because we shall not be able to. If I had been able to do so in my evidence, I would have done so, but because of the radical changes that we are making, we need to get this right.
	I shall make a brief comment on overall pay. I have always taken the view that we are too shy and retiring on this subject. People recognise that MPs need a proper rate of pay for the job. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put it correctly when he said that a balance must be struck between not underpaying and not overpaying. My experience is that when we ask the public what they think about politicians generally, they have a low opinion of us, but if we ask them about their individual MP, they speak highly of the amount of work and commitment that that MP puts in, even if they do not agree with him or her politically.
	We therefore make a serious mistake if we buy the newspaper line that all politicians are hopeless. Indeed, if my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) had his amendment adopted, I would have said to him that he had chosen exactly the wrong group—the way to deal with this matter would have been to link MPs' pay to that of senior journalists and editors. That would fundamentally have changed the nature of the debate. Indeed, if we had linked our pay to that of editors, we would all be being driven home in limousines at the end of the day.
	Journalists and MPs have a special relationship and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said, it is important to recognise that MPs must be properly resourced if we are to make our democracy work. That means being able to respond appropriately and fully to the needs of our constituents. It also requires us to be able to hold the Government to account and undertake the other tasks that we want to fulfil in Parliament. For that, we must have the appropriate research back-up.

Martin Salter: Few Members here would disagree that MPs should be properly rewarded, but are we not forgetting that if we are to be paid the proper rate for the job, and I suggest that we are, it would be right and proper to take a fresh look at whether we should be able to engage in outside business interests? If we are being paid a full-time rate for a full-time job, what on earth are we doing moonlighting?

Clive Soley: I am pleased to say that there are far fewer moonlighters than there used to be. Having said that, as one who does not have an outside job, I take the view that we must acknowledge that MPs need a proper rate of pay for the job. If they do their job, I am not so worried about what they do at other times. However, I would be extremely worried if Members frequently earned large sums in other jobs, and I am glad that we have rowed back on that. We must be careful about where we draw the line, because any of us might earn money by writing an article or writing a book, which seems to be popular from time to time.
	I must move on to discuss my amendments, but I should first refer to our staff. Most MPs think that they are good employers, but in my experience many of us, even with the best of intentions, are not. That is one reason why I argued so strongly that MPs should have the right to hire and fire, but that the general administration and servicing of staff should be done by the Fees Office. That would have two enormous advantages, and the first is that it would create transparency for the public.
	Our old system was faulty because people could not see the money going straight to our staff, even though that was where it went. In many cases, Members had to put their hand in their own pocket to pay staff. However, some staff got a poor deal, so we must act. The report provides appropriately for that, which is the second advantage, and I hope that our vote today will make the position solid.

Michael Spicer: Why should maximum salaries be set in the context that the hon. Gentleman has just described?

Clive Soley: We have to set a maximum value for the pay of our staff, and the judgment is how many staff a Member needs. When I gave evidence, I said that, in my judgment, an MP needs between three and a half and four staff. The SSRB said three. It then produced a salary scale, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred. We may want to revisit the issue through the Speaker's advisory panel, because we do not have it quite right.
	I would be reluctant to table detailed amendments before we have had time to see how the proposal works, and I ask Members to bear in mind the fact that it represents a radical improvement. We are moving in the right direction and setting up the structures to deal with these matters, which is the important point.

Bill Etherington: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Clive Soley: Briefly.

Bill Etherington: I am always brief, so that is not a problem. Can my hon. Friend explain why no consideration was given to setting minimum rates? MPs have been left in an open position. We should avoid the problems of pay freezes and reductions, which are endemic in the proposal.

Clive Soley: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right to use the word "endemic". What are proposed are pay scales that, contrary to rumours going around the House, are set not by the Transport and General Workers Union but by Hay Management Consultants, which has considered the pay range. He will be able to appoint his staff at any point on the scale and there is an uprating procedure, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred. We must consider certain specific problems, however, and, in the light of my hon. Friend's intervention, I shall deal with them now, beginning with a classic example.
	We may need to revisit and refer back to the SSRB the circumstances of a highly skilled, highly qualified secretary who has been employed by an MP for a long time. I employ such a person. If such secretaries went to work outside the House, they would earn considerably more than they are paid here. We need a means to pay a person with specialist experience, knowledge and long service, so I hope that the matter is referred back to the SSRB through the Speaker's panel. I shall work to achieve that, because we do not have the answer at the moment.

Joan Ruddock: rose—

Clive Soley: I am conscious of the fact that many Back Benchers want to speak, but I shall take a final intervention.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he take it from me—or perhaps he already knows—that a person employed by a Greater London Authority Member would start at close on £25,000 as a caseworker and researcher? For many of us who represent inner-London constituencies, that is the yardstick to which we have to work.

Clive Soley: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot add to what I have said. However, I remind Members that the proposal represents a radical improvement and a big step in the right direction. We must build on it, pick out the anomalies and deal with them over the next year or two.
	The safety of our staff is incredibly important. The Liberal party suffered a tragic experience in that respect and, although we all think of it as a special case, we know that we sometimes ask our staff to deal with disturbed people. Over the years, Members have done research on their surgeries and I have to tell the House that people with severe paranoid disorders often visit MPs. After all, if a submarine is interfering with a person's brainwaves, who else can that person go to but his MP, who can get the Secretary of State for Defence to make it stop? We sometimes ask our staff to deal with seriously disturbed people and we should not underestimate the demands involved in such a request. That is why I am pleased about the recommendation on safety.
	Amendment (o) is straightforward and Members will understand it, but there is a complication that I want to point out. I am aware that many Members employ their staff in London even though they are not London MPs, and my amendment addresses that. When I read the SSRB report, I realised that we had to make a change, but there is a difficulty which I ask Members to bear in mind.
	I have taken helpful advice from the Fees Office on the wording of the amendment in order to get it right. A Member who represents a seat outside London but who employs someone here will be able to get the extra £3,500. However, matters will get very complicated for Members if they attempt to break the work up. Staff may be employed part time and I know that it is common for Members to employ someone in London when the House is sitting, but in the constituency when the House is not sitting. I strongly advise Members to talk through such an arrangement with the Fees Office first; otherwise, in certain limited cases, they will run out of money before the end of the year. We must monitor the situation closely and, if necessary, ask the Speaker's panel to address it.
	I have already referred to the long-service award, so I shall pass over it. Amendment (d), which is also straightforward, would move the incidental expenses allowance up from £14,000 to £18,000. The SSRB set the figure too low. The media may want to pick up that point and say, "They are giving themselves £4,000 over and above the SSRB recommendation", so let me spell out the importance of the amendment.
	Every Member is like a small company. I have tried several times to get a feel for the way in which MPs operate and almost every one operates differently. The amendment would take payment of staff out of the office costs allowance and enable us to deal with it separately. We should establish a pot of money that Members could use flexibly and, within the constraints of parliamentary duties, in any way they liked. The report makes clear how the SSRB reached the sum of £14,000, made up of the rental of accommodation plus a pot of £5,000 for incidentals. That pot is interchangeable and remains so in my amendment which would increase the allowance to £18,000. Members may use it as they like so long as it is for parliamentary duties.
	I should like to conclude by giving the House a few examples as it is a matter that has frustrated me for many years. I suspect that our constituents want their Members of Parliament to be innovative and develop new ways of working.
	Soon after I was first elected, I got involved in Northern Ireland issues. During the dirty protest and what became the hunger strike, I visited some of the prisons. I wanted to visit a prison in southern Ireland which was experiencing similar problems, of which, as a former probation officer, I had some knowledge. We bent the rules slightly inasmuch as my fare was paid even though I was not on a Select Committee and I was on the Front Bench for only part of that period. However, I could not go to Dublin and visit the prison there, so we did daft things like buying a return ticket to Belfast, converting it to one that came back from Dublin and paying the difference or getting the train from Belfast to Dublin and paying the fare ourselves.
	The problem has not gone away. If Members representing southern constituencies go to visit the new Parliament in Edinburgh, they can get their ticket paid, but if they stay overnight and make it a two-day visit they will have to pay the difference themselves. It is ludicrous. German Members of Parliament have all their travel paid. One of the recommendations of the Fees Office to the SSRB was that about £4,000 should be set aside for that type of travel. I have tried to deal with the issue by putting the money into a general pot. Many hon. Members have pointed out that £14,000 is not sufficient to pay for the rental of a constituency office and the telephone bill. That has been one of the biggest complaints, so rather than propose an amendment that would allow for the payment of telephone calls, as that would cause many complications, I simply proposed increasing the allowance.

Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman think that his amendment deals adequately with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—that those of us who seek to provide office accommodation in our constituencies are meeting a huge range of costs that would otherwise be met in this building, which means that we will not have the resources for journeys and overnight stays in Dublin such as the hon. Gentleman has described?

Clive Soley: The answer is that some people will and others will not. Some Members spend £10,000 or more a year on rent. Others are paying only £2,000 or £3,000 a year, often because they are in substandard accommodation and, for a variety of reasons, are paying below the market rent. We cannot get a typical picture, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the proposals are a great step forward.
	I have often been praised for setting up the evidence-taking sessions. I thought that there should be more such sessions in the House of Commons. The ones on the press Bill were largely paid for, but the ones on the working of the family and on family policy in the country at large were not, so I ended up paying for them myself and getting outside organisations to contribute. If we want Members of Parliament to work innovatively, we ought to be able to carry out such research. In the long run, through the Speaker's panel and perhaps by referral back to the SSRB, we will need to find other ways to improve and expand on this package.
	If people want good representation—I know that they do—and if they want their Parliament to be more effective, we have to pay for it. Democracy does not come cheap and if we want good-quality democracy and good-quality Members of Parliament who are well resourced, we are taking a big step in the right direction. We have not got it all right today, but I ask hon. Members to vote for my amendments and for the proposals we are considering today.

Paul Tyler: I am sure that all parties are having a free vote today, so it follows that what I have to say today is in no way a party line. I have consulted my 51 right hon. and hon. Friends and have had conversations with a great many other Members, so I hope that my speech will at least be reasonably well informed.
	From the previous debate on salaries and allowances I recall several high-minded speeches in which Members said that they would vote against the increases for various reasons and, no doubt, with good motives. With that in mind, when the SSRB report became available earlier this year I asked the then Leader of the House how many hon. Members, in the current financial year, voluntarily elected to forgo any or all of their parliamentary salary. I wonder whether anyone can tell what the answer was: it was, of course, a resounding nought.

Chris Mullin: I can assist the hon. Gentleman. I took the view that I could give away the proceeds of that last outrageous salary increase more effectively than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor could. I have been taking the increase for the past five years and diverting all but 3 per cent. of it to a donations account, which I give away to good causes of my choice.

Paul Tyler: That is admirable, but my next point follows precisely from that. I have given away between 15 and 20 per cent. of my salary to my staff. I have had to do that because, as the Leader of the House said, to do a good job of work we have needed staff to provide a service to our constituents and to the nation. We are here not only as constituency Members; as Edmund Burke said, we also represent the whole nation. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) obviously has a very large majority and perhaps he does not have to provide quite the service that I have to provide in North Cornwall, but I can assure him that in a very scattered rural area the staffing required demands a level of resources that has not been available in the past. That is why I entirely endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley).
	I understood the points that were made in the previous debate, but all right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that what we are doing today is not voting ourselves increases in salaries and allowances but trying to ensure that we properly resource the services that we provide to our constituents and to the nation as its representatives. Surely that must be what it is all about.
	As I said in a previous debate, there are opportunities for humbug, but there are more opportunities for humbug among the media. I recall that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was a professional journalist before he entered politics, so the proposal by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush is entirely right. If we tied our increases to the remuneration of senior journalists, I suspect that we would have less humbug from the fourth estate. They do not provide their own staff, equipment or offices. Frankly, they do not have a clue about the costs that we have to incur.
	Timing is an issue. I very much regret the fact that we are debating this now rather than before the general election. I said publicly and privately to the previous Leader of the House that we should take the matter to the electorate to see what they had to say. Interestingly, despite the fact that all the proposals were in the public domain and were well publicised by the newspapers, I do not recall a single comment from any member of the public during the recent general election. That entirely endorses the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush: that although respect for the reputation of Parliament as an institution is pretty low, individual Members representing all parties have a high rating when it comes to serving their constituents. There is growing recognition of that, on which I hope the media will reflect in future.
	There are still some important teething problems in the package before us, but that should not obscure the fact that we now have a mechanism by which others outside this place look at the work that we do, provide appropriate comparators and seek to make an objective assessment of what we and our services are worth. We would break that tradition at our peril. That is why I oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South; as soon as we bring in different comparators, everyone will come up with something that is thought to be more appropriate. The SSRB may not be perfect, but it is certainly a great deal better than the House, in effect, contemplating its navel and trying to decide in a very unfortunate way how we should deal with these matters.

Steve Webb: The SSRB asked what a person in a comparator job would be paid. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in determining what we should be paid, that is only half the question? Unlike an NHS manager, we are expected to be representatives and to understand the living standards of our constituents. If we merely say that we do the same sort of job as a senior civil servant and so should be paid the same, there is a danger that we will lose touch with our constituents.

Paul Tyler: I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to develop that interesting argument. The problem is that, although we look for comparators, the job of a representative of the nation in this place is unique, so it is extremely difficult to find a completely relevant comparator. I take my hon. Friend's point, but I think that he is asking for perfection.
	Reference has been made to the role of the Department of Finance and Administration in developing the package of proposals. It will have an extremely difficult task precisely because this is such a unique institution and our job is so unusual. The role of the Speaker's advisory panel will be very important, especially in the transitional phase. It is unfair on Officers of the House to ask them to make political judgments—these are policy issues. The advisory panel will have an important role to play. Mr. Speaker, you and your staff will have to bear a significant added work load, especially in the new system as it develops. We who put that load on you and your staff must be conscious of that.
	I do not want to say anything more about salary, because I accept the SSRB recommendation. Although many of us may have concerns about some of the proposals at the fringes, we must maintain the integrity of the package if we can—on that, I am with the Leader of the House. If we ask people outside to make a careful assessment of what is right but then start to play with that assessment, we will open a can of worms.
	It is important to remember that the allowances are ceilings; they are not recommended expenditure or perks. We are not being given some money and told to take it. Whatever the allowance may be, individual Members of Parliament may go up to that ceiling for that purpose. Not every Member must go up to the ceiling or feel that that is necessary. I am full of admiration for Members who are able to provide a service to their constituents at a lower rate; that is fine.
	It is important that we do not accept the whole of the SSRB report, and the appendices produced by the consultants, as though they were written in stone. It is clear from the table to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred that Hay did not really get under the skin of Members of Parliament. There is no reference to a case worker. Most Members of Parliament have someone who does case work as a key function in their constituency office. Similarly, it is clear from the job descriptions in that appendix that there will be mixes of different types of operation, and every Member may have a different mix. The motion is not saying that that is how it will be done: it is merely an illustration, and the figures given are median figures.
	In addition to the point about national insurance contributions and redundancy figures, there is the extremely important issue of whether these are salary ranges or salary scales. I know from my business experience as well as from my experience in the House that those two things are very different. People on salary ranges may be told, "You'll start there and we'll see how you go." Salary ranges have the important function of ensuring that there is not a glass ceiling on which people soon bang their heads, and are quite different from salary scales. I am sure that the Fees Office will be alive to that.
	I understand that we shall be given some salary ranges before the recess, so it will be much easier to see how the issues to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred can be dealt with. The onus will still be on Members of Parliament to ensure that we remunerate our staff sensibly and properly, and that we devise realistic rather than artificial job specifications. It would be absurd if we accepted Hay's descriptions, which are not appropriate.
	I take the points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about flexibility and about the fact that great care needs to be taken during the transition. We might have to come back to this issue in future, but the present motions offer helpful guidance without being too prescriptive.
	I welcome the provision for security. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) knows only too well how inadequately and disgracefully we have protected our staff and our voluntary assistants in the past, because we have not had the resources to do so. I am sure that we all remember the tragic result of that failure.
	I endorse the principle behind the special motion relating to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It is important to note that it does not refer to him as the Foreign Secretary. We are not indemnifying an officer of the Crown. All Members of Parliament and their staff must be protected against the litigious actions of the public in the work we do on their behalf. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said on the insurance that is built into the package.
	As I said at the outset, the Liberal Democrats have a free vote, so my advice is purely that and no stronger. I am worried by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). Although I recognise their force, I think I am right in saying that they would negate the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush on the differential between London-based staff and the staff of London Members of Parliament. The logic of the report is that London-based staff will want London rates to apply. I am concerned that if we accepted the amendment of the hon. Member for Beckenham we could not incorporate amendment (o) tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.

Jacqui Lait: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman here and now that my amendment was not drafted with that in mind: it was drafted to build in flexibility. If the amendment is likely to be accepted, I am happy to redraft it.

Paul Tyler: I do not know whether that is possible, but whoever replies to the debate may deal with that point. As I read the amendment, and according to advice I have received from the Clerks Department, it would negate amendment (o).
	I confess that I have some difficulty with the issue of incidental expenses and the ceiling of £14,000 or £18,000. My parliamentary constituency office is not subsidised, but it has been located in its present premises for some time and the rent is relatively low. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who is newly elected to the House, faces a different rental market. She is an example of a Member who will find it difficult to rent reasonable accommodation that provides safety and security for her staff.

Anne Campbell: The important point to make is that it is possible to claim the allowance only if the Member has spent it.

Paul Tyler: I entirely agree. As I said earlier, these allowances are not automatic—they are ceilings.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham has also tabled an amendment on IT equipment and procurement. I listened carefully to the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Information. We must recognise that the procurement of IT is complicated and difficult. It is not brand choice, but specification choice that is of concern. It is what computers will do that concerns us, not who provides them. The Information Committee has done a very good job in that respect.
	I have great sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on the additional costs allowance—the costs that those of us with constituents in other parts of the country incur when travelling to and spending time in London. I hope that he will explain the logic of his amendment. After all, the SSRB identified this as a real problem, but it was not asked to do so in relation to the House of Commons; it was asked to do so in relation to our noble Friends. The timing was unfortunate, in that when the inquiry was set up the board was not asked to consider the problem on our behalf. It is a particularly serious problem given the cost of finding accommodation in London, which affects all Members but especially new Members.
	It is always tempting to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, who is very persuasive, but I think that to tear up the arrangement we have reached with the SSRB and find a completely new comparator would be entirely misguided at this stage, and would open a Pandora's box.
	When it comes to parliamentary pensions I take the advice of the trustees very seriously, as I think many Members will. None of us is here for ever, and although I have not yet reached the point of having a special interest—unlike the Leader of the House—I remember only too well, when I first arrived here many years ago, seeing some Members retire on derisory pensions. I therefore hope that Members will listen carefully to what is said by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) asks for only one of the SSRB's recommendations to be put to the House for comment, at this stage, rather than being kicked into what may be rather longer grass than we intended.
	The debate is important and many wish to speak, but let me reiterate one major point: if we decide to tear up the recommendations of those who have been asked to advise us on an objective basis, we shall become involved in some very invidious discussions in this place. I hope we shall not do that.

Ernie Ross: I support all that was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
	Many voices are missing from today's debate, because those involved cannot be here. I refer to the voices of our staff. I hope that at 4 pm we shall agree to move towards the proposed new system, but I also hope that members of all parties will first admit that we have been among both the best and the worst employers in the United Kingdom. I can confirm that from my experience as chairman of the staff liaison committee of the parliamentary Labour party, and from our association with the secretaries council.
	Over the years Members have had the best staff they could wish for, both here and in their constituencies; yet we have consistently failed to support them by providing either proper equipment or proper salaries and conditions. The Transport and General Workers Union is on the staff liaison committee—representing staff of all political parties, not just Labour—and we have had to deal with cases of people whose salaries would shock most people outside.
	Just before the SSRB's report, the TGWU conducted a survey whose findings are worth reading. Some staff salaries are shocking—regardless of the party for whom those people work—and bear no relation to the amount that we can claim in office allowances. As I have said, we are among both the best and the worst employers, but we certainly would not stand for some of these employment practices if we discovered them in our constituencies.
	The debate gives us an opportunity to make progress. On behalf of the parliamentary Labour party, I and successive chairs of the PLP, dating back to the chairmanship of Lord Orme, have given evidence to the SSRB. At that time, in the first evidence we gave, we argued for a division between our responsibilities—a division between the way in which we hired and fired staff, and the way they were treated as individuals and employees. We argued for the establishment of a personnel department. Although that is not included in this recommendation, I feel that it is one of the issues that your advisory panel should consider, Mr. Speaker. We do need a proper personnel service to ensure that our staff are treated like normal human beings.
	We also need to consider, as a separate issue, the equipment that our staff need in order to do their jobs. It has taken us a long time to reach the stage at which that distinction can be made. Many staff work, or at least did work, with obsolete equipment, because the Members for whom they worked could not afford to pay for new equipment. Conversely, many staff did not receive wage increases because the Member involved had bought some equipment instead.
	All sorts of peculiar practices have gone on over the years. The review gives us an opportunity to proceed to a system that is fair to our staff, and makes us more accountable to those whom we seek to serve. As I have said, weaknesses remain; I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will soon appoint your advisory panel, and that it will take account of some of the issues raised today.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned public liability. Following an incident when parts of this building fell down and almost killed members of our staff, the Minister for Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—who was a member of the PLP staff liaison committee—argued for the provision of public liability cover for every staff member. Each of us should have a public liability certificate displayed wherever we employ staff, both here and in our constituencies.
	There are further outstanding problems that your advisory panel should consider, Mr. Speaker. For instance, our staff still do not enjoy superannuation conditions similar to those of other employees of the House or, indeed, of Members themselves. Under the current system, staff can qualify for a payment—we can claim on their behalf, but they cannot claim themselves—of 10 per cent. into a pension of their choice. That is ridiculous. If we do as most Members should do and increase the salaries of our staff each year, we must then increase their pensions as well—and the pension company, whichever it is, rips off the public purse by taking a percentage of the increase as a service charge. The sooner our staff are on a proper superannuation scheme, the better.
	I do not want to labour the point, as I think it important for us to reach 4 pm very quickly. [Interruption.] I want to allow others a chance to speak. Let me say, however, that the voice of staff has been kept quiet too long here. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that your panel will provide room for representatives of both the TGWU and the secretaries council, to ensure that staff interests are looked after properly.
	I entirely support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). As I have said, we have waited many years for this day, and on behalf of our staff I thank Members in advance for voting for a proper structure for them.

John Butterfill: I rise on behalf of fellow trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and in my capacity as chairman of the parliamentary Members fund, the hardship fund set up to look after Members who fall into financial difficulties, or whose widows and children do so. That gives me a perspective on these issues that perhaps not all right hon. and hon. Members enjoy.
	I was disappointed that the Government did not make their own submission on the issue of pensions to the review body. We fully expected that they would; I am puzzled as to why they did not. I understand that the only representation that was made was an oral one by a senior Treasury official. Hon. Members will not be surprised to know that that submission concentrated on the additional costs that would be involved if the amendment standing in my name and that of my fellow trustees were accepted. That may have been one of the things that influenced the recommendation that, sadly, the review body has made.
	The review body and those who have taken part in successive debates on the issue have failed to recognise the fundamental difference between employment in this place and employment anywhere else. We try to encourage into this place people of the highest quality, from all walks of life, preferably people who have been successful in other careers, so that they can bring their expertise and make a valuable contribution to debates in this place. In doing so, we often ask them to give up extremely successful careers outside.
	It is probably true that the majority of Members have taken a reduction in their income in order to be here. We all knew what we were in for, so there is no complaint about that, but the problem is that, on average, Members serve less than 10 years in this place. They have to pick up careers after they leave. Often, they serve the prime 10 years of their working lives in this place. I, as a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and as chairman of the parliamentary Members fund, have seen what the impact is on many Members who leave this place. They often do so involuntarily: they may be defeated at an election, the boundaries of their constituency may change, or they may suffer ill health.
	After leaving, at least half of all Members are worse off than they were as Members. Probably many more are worse than they were before they became Members. Some are seriously worse off. There are still hon. Members who lost their seats in 1997 who remain unemployed. Many Members, particularly those who are older, in their 50s, found it very difficult to get decent full-time re-employment elsewhere, and have had to take part-time jobs or part-time consultancies—they have become supply teachers, for example—and are on much lower incomes than they were on when they were here. Those Members are not able to top up their pension fund to keep it at the level that they would have enjoyed had they remained Members. It is those Members whom I am particularly concerned about. They will and do suffer severe hardship.

Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Butterfill: I would like to make some progress because many other hon. Members want to speak and we do not have a long time. If the hon. Lady will allow, I shall continue.
	It is those Members whom I am concerned about. It is that interrupted service that is not recognised in any way by the present arrangements.

Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Butterfill: I shall.

Jenny Tonge: The hon. Gentleman must surely agree that many women who have children are in exactly the same position.

John Butterfill: Of course, one accepts that that is true, but we are comparing the parliamentary career with the situation of people outside. If someone in employment as an accountant or a lawyer—a large proportion of Members are lawyers—[Hon. Members: "Too many."] Still, if an accountant or lawyer loses his job, he can get employment again.

Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Butterfill: No, I will not give way again to the hon. Lady. I am already regretting having done so in the first place.
	The Leader of the House said that we must look at the impact of the proposal on other public sector employment and at its costs. Almost uniquely in the public sector, our pension scheme is a funded scheme. Almost all other public sector pensions are unfunded. They operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. The Government do not provide a fund of money in order to pay them. They pay them out of current taxation.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) may not remember it, but at one time, hon. Members were paying 9 per cent. of their salary towards their pensions. As a result of that and of the prudent management of funds by the trustees, the pension scheme is and has been in substantial surplus for some years. The consequence has been that the Government contribution has been well below that recommended by the Government Actuary over many years.
	The Government Actuary recommends how much should be paid if the scheme were unfunded. He deducts from that what Members are contributing and then arrives at the figure that the Government would need to pay. I will quote the amounts that the Government have saved over the past few years. In 1990, the Government paid 6.6 per cent. less than the Government Actuary recommended; in 1992, 10.2 per cent. less than recommended; in 1995, 9.9 per cent. less; in 1996, 7.9 per cent. less; in 1999, 8.1 per cent. less; and in 2001, 11 per cent. less than recommended. The proposal would mean a 6 per cent. increase in cost—about £28 million. Even if the Government were to accept that, because of the scheme surplus they would still pay significantly less than the Government Actuary recommends they should, so we do not need crocodile tears from the Treasury telling us that the proposal cannot be afforded.
	The House voted on the matter in 1980 and recommended that we should increase the accrual rate to one fortieth, which is what the trustees recommend at the moment. Unfortunately, that was not implemented, but it represents the very least that is being obtained in comparable countries.

Mark Todd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman let me continue for a just a bit longer?
	We are probably the meanest democracy in the western world in the way that we treat our Members of Parliament in terms of pensions. I will demonstrate that with facts and figures, but first I shall give some other public sector comparisons. Only one other public sector involves the principle of interrupted service: when the legal profession moves into the judiciary, sometimes temporarily. The judges' scheme is complicated. They used to receive a full pension after 15 or 20 years, depending on the rank of judge they were, but they are now on an accrual rate of one fortieth, which is what we are asking for.
	The police have a complicated accrual rate. The rate is one sixtieth for the first 20 years and two sixtieths for each year thereafter, up to a maximum of forty sixtieths, which means that they receive, effectively, an accrual rate of one fortieth. They achieve a maximum pension of two thirds after 30 years of service. Of course, their retirement age is very much lower than ours. We retire at 65, although it is possible to retire at 60 if one is willing to take a substantially reduced pension. In the police service, however, the pension is payable from the age of 50. Normal retirement age in the police is 55, and 60 for inspectors and superintendents, except in the Metropolitan police, for whom it is 55.
	Similarly, in the armed forces, to which reference has been made, the scheme grants a full pension after 34 years' service. That is similar to our scheme, but the armed forces' retirement age is 55 and they can retire after 16 years' reckonable service. Unlike our scheme, theirs is non-contributory.

Mark Todd: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the comparison made by the trustees in their evidence. They regarded the range and diversity of a Member of Parliament's job as comparable to that of directors and senior executives in the private sector. Having left such a role to come to this place, I have no pension from that period of service that is comparable to what he is proposing. Moreover, I fail to see any justifiable comparison with the responsibilities.

John Butterfill: All I can say is that the review body thought that MPs were comparable with senior management and junior directors. The hon. Gentleman might have forgotten that it was making a comparison with the ordinary duties of a Back Bencher, and perhaps overlooked the fact that Members undertake considerable additional and onerous unpaid appointments, whether as Parliamentary Private Secretaries, members or Chairmen of Select Committees, members of the Chairmen's Panel, or Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. A large number of the appointments that the majority of Members undertake substantially increase their work load. So the hon. Gentleman's comparison is not terribly accurate.
	I want to make a comparison with what happens in other Parliaments. In Australia, pensions are payable after 12 years or four parliamentary terms in the case of voluntary retirement, and after eight years or three parliamentary terms in the case of involuntary retirement. The scheme provides for a maximum pension of 75 per cent. of basic salary after only 18 years.
	In Denmark, pensions are linked to civil service grade No. 49, and are payable in full after 20 years' membership of the Danish House.
	In Finland, the full pension is payable after 15 years as an MP. Those born before 1940 get 66 per cent. of MPs' pay from the age of 60. Those born after 1940 are eligible for 60 per cent. at 65. However, Members who are defeated receive what is called an "adjustment pension" for the rest of their lives, at the current rate of 1,250 ecu a month. When an MP dies, his spouse and children receive his full pension.
	In France, Members can accrue a maximum pension of 84.375 per cent. of final salary after twenty-two and a half years. In Germany, the maximum pension is 75 per cent. of final salary after seventeen and a half years.
	In the Republic of Ireland, the accrual rate is one fortieth and Members receive two thirds of their pay after twenty-six and two thirds years. That is in line with our suggestion, and is one of the less generous overseas schemes.
	In the Isle of Man, the accrual rate is one fortieth, but the maximum pension payable after 30 years' service is 75 per cent. of final salary. In the United States of America, the maximum pension is 80 per cent. of final salary, with an accrual rate of one fortieth.
	The combined resources of the Fees Office and the House of Commons Library have not enabled me to find a single other western country that pays such a mean rate of pension as we do, and it is about time we put that right.

Chris Mullin: I have a feeling that my contribution to today's proceedings may prove a mite less popular with my colleagues than my speech yesterday. Indeed, colleagues whose judgment I respect have advised me that it is not a wise career move for someone like me—young, ambitious, upwardly mobile—to table such amendments. Well, that is something I shall just have to live with. I came to this place to do what I believe to be right, not to bask in the warm glow of colleagues' approbation, pleasant though that is. Whatever view they take, I hope that hon. Members will at least accept the spirit in which I speak.
	I should say at the outset that I am strongly in favour of the motion on Members' allowances, which will place the employment of our staff on a proper footing. That is long overdue, and I congratulate those responsible, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who played a leading part in achieving the reform.
	I turn to the amendment that is in my name and those of several other hon. Members. I do not believe that there is any justification for awarding ourselves an extra £4,000 over the next two years, and my amendment would rescind that. Nor should we be in the invidious position of having to vote on our own pay, and my amendment would put an end to that embarrassment once and for all. It would do so by linking our fortunes not to those of some anonymous civil servant, as we have attempted to do in the past, but to a cross-section of public servants—nurses, teachers, doctors and dentists—with whom our constituents can readily identify.
	If the amendment is accepted, our pay will rise each year by the average of the increase received by those professions. The figure for last year would have been about 3.7 per cent., and for the previous year about 3.3 per cent. That is not very different from the increases that we received. We would not, however, receive the extra £4,000.
	There is a view that certain so-called top people should be immune from the laws of the market—in which, in all other respects, they usually believe strongly—that apply to ordinary mortals. I do not share that view. So far as possible, elected representatives should share the same sunshine and rainfall as those whom they represent. I do not accept that £49,000 a year is an inadequate salary. We are in the top 10 per cent. of income earners. We earn more than the overwhelming majority of our constituents, although I appreciate that that is less true of those who represent the more prosperous areas. However, the fact remains that £49,000 a year is a good salary, even in the most prosperous areas. I agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in opening the debate: we should not undervalue our work, and our present salary does not do so.
	It might be possible to justify an increase this time if we could argue that ours is a profession that finds it difficult to attract candidates of the right calibre, or if seats were left unfilled owing to a lack of applications. The truth, however, is that all parties are heavily oversubscribed with applicants for winnable seats. Perhaps it has escaped my attention, but I have not noticed any unfilled vacancies. Unlike nurses, teachers and doctors, there is no shortage of people wanting to become Members of Parliament.
	It is a tribute to the fact that the public service ethic is not entirely dead, and to the undoubted attractions of the job, that there are individuals who are prepared to give up highly paid jobs in business or the professions to seek election to Parliament. As long as that remains the case, there is no justification for a large salary increase.

Paul Tyler: As a former Minister, does the hon. Gentleman think that the same principle applies to the recent increase in ministerial salaries?

Chris Mullin: We are not debating ministerial salaries. Should the hon. Gentleman's talents come to the attention of the Prime Minister and in due course he becomes a Minister, I assure him that I, for one, will not resent whatever salary happens to be paid for that job.
	It cannot have escaped our attention that Members' standing in the esteem of the public is not all that high at present. No doubt there are a variety of reasons for that, many of them unfair, but we are not in such a strong position that we can afford to take even a little gamble with public opinion. I know that there is a view that this is a small storm and it will all blow over in a few days, but I do not agree: every time we do something like this, it adds to the great ocean of cynicism lapping at the foundations of the democratic process. Nor will it be forgotten as quickly as some Members think. Even now, after five years, people still raise with me the last outrageous salary increase that we voted ourselves, in July 1996.
	Over the past four weeks, I have participated in various discussions about the urgent need to restore respect for politicians and the political process. I am not clear how awarding ourselves a large increase in salary will help to achieve that. I look forward to hearing from anyone who thinks that it will.

Andrew Bennett: There is a strong case for awarding nurses and others in this category a large increase. Suppose that my hon. Friend's amendment were accepted and that those people then got the pay increase they deserved. Would it not increase people's cynicism, and would they not say, "Ah, they only got the extra money because MPs' salaries are now linked to theirs."

Chris Mullin: I have to accept that some people are capable of finding cynical motives anywhere, but linking our salaries to professions with which our constituents could readily identify would be easier to defend than the present situation.

John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Mullin: I would like to get on.

John Butterfill: But you asked for people to comment.

Chris Mullin: Oh, well then—please be my guest.

John Butterfill: Of course there continue to be many people who are prepared to give up high salaries to come here for a lower one. The question is whether there are as many as there used to be. If we are to believe the media, the quality of people coming here is getting poorer and poorer. If they are right, that may be a reason.

Chris Mullin: I do not want to get involved in discussing the quality of my colleagues, other than to say that, in 14 years in this place, I have found people of an amazing range of talents and abilities. I have already done enough to hone down my vote in any internal party elections without commenting further.
	If this is such a good idea, why did we not vote on it before the general election? The report has been around for some time and could easily have been dealt with before 7 June. We all know why it was not.
	I tabled my amendment to give those who are against the proposed salary increase, be they ever so few, an opportunity to place their opposition on the record.

Jacqui Lait: In both constituencies that I have represented here, I have become well known, if not notorious, for believing that our remuneration package needs to be improved, so I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will not complain if I do not follow down his path.
	My points are based on my experience of having to think flexibly and laterally about how to manage on the limited resources provided by the office costs allowance. I acknowledge that the total has increased, but we need to build in much more flexibility than is found in either the report or the Government's recommendations. I was glad that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) recognised that.
	The report seemed to be pervaded by the belief that we are all dreadful employers. There have been conflicting comments about how good or bad we are, but if we are to enhance our abilities, it would be better for us to get training on how to be a good employer rather than to inflict inflexible regimes on everybody, regardless of their qualities as an employer. If we had such training, we might be able to use our resources more flexibly.
	In employing my staff, I have found that the draft, and very brief, job description, as outlined in the report, and the salary allied to it, do not fit with what I expect to need. We are all being dragooned into going down a route that may not be the most effective way of delivering services to our constituents and to the House. I would like the Leader of the House to clarify whether there is flexibility in our discussions with the Fees Office about both the contract and the pay that goes with it.
	The Leader of the House referred to the use of consultants. In order to provide the best possible service with the limited sum available, I have used consultants in various areas, and not only in research. The right hon. Gentleman said that he believed that such a practice should be allowed to continue. Does he believe that we should be able to continue to use consultants within our staff budget from 5 July, or does he want to refer the matter to the Speaker's panel?
	I know that there are various views on how information technology needs would best be provided. I use IT extensively, although anyone who knows me is aware that I am not a specialist in it. I already use three desktops and two laptops, across two staff, so the recommended package does not even meet my current needs. I have two combined fax, copiers, scanners and printers, plus one very robust printer for the vast volume of letters that my secretary has to print off. That, again, is not covered.
	I understand that it has been mooted that we should be able to buy the extra equipment that we need through our discretionary allowance, but given the speed of technological change, upgrading every four years is not good enough. I am concerned that, because of the IT budget, our IT will go the way of our internal telephone system, which it took 20 years to upgrade. I fear that we will not only not upgrade as often as we should but find ourselves sliding back into using the equivalent of the old manual typewriters.
	In order to keep my equipment going, I have my own computer consultants who provide me not only with training but with instant back-up, whenever I need it, including weekends and evenings. I am a great believer in avoiding having a monopoly provider. I hope that, out of our increased expenses, we will be allowed to keep our own computer support staff.
	If the Leader of the House can give me assurances on all those points, I will be most grateful. If not, I will want to take the necessary action.

Clive Betts: I rise to speak to amendment (e) on the additional costs allowance. I thank those hon. Members who have supported my proposal. I should add that I will be supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), and the amendment tabled collectively and unanimously by our pension trustees, who belong to parties on both sides of the House.
	We all wish that the question of additional costs had been referred to the SSRB when the other allowances were, but it was not. That is unique. The SSRB last looked at these matters in 1996, when the overnight allowances for Members of the House of Lords and the additional costs allowance for hon. Members were considered at the same time.
	It may be contended that the two allowances are not exactly comparable, and that is true. One is an overnight allowance, and the other is a yearly allowance. However, the SSRB concluded that they existed for the same purposes, and made a direct comparison between those allowances and allowances elsewhere in the public and private sectors.
	That comparison can be found on page 93 of the 1996 report, which was report No. 38. The SSRB concluded that the two allowances were roughly similar, as the overnight allowance for Members of the House of Lords was £74 per night, and the additional costs allowance for hon. Members, when divided by that Session's 159 sitting days, came to £76.86 per night.
	The figures for the most recent year go up to March 2001, and show that the House of Lords allowance was £84 per night. I had an exchange earlier on this matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and the information that I have obtained from the House of Commons Library is that there were 159 sitting days last year. Dividing hon. Members' additional costs allowance of £13,322 by that figure puts our nightly rate at £83.79. The two figures are therefore very similar indeed.
	The two allowances have the same purpose, as the SSRB has decided in the past. It has also decided that they should be calculated on essentially the same basis. I therefore conclude that the same percentage increase—of 42 per cent.—should apply.
	In fact, the House of Lords has done a little better than that. The SSRB said that, in future, Members of the House of Lords can claim for the nights on which they sit and for the Sunday night before a sitting week. In the coming Session, therefore, it is recommended that, if the Lords sits for four days, the maximum allowance for that week will rise not by 42 per cent. but by 78 per cent.
	Before my right hon. Friend has a slight heart attack at that, I assure him that I shall not press an increase of 78 per cent. However, there is strong evidence that the percentage increase should be the same for both allowances, as historically they have been calculated on the same basis. The current report is No. 48, and paragraph 4.4 of section IV of part 3 of volume 2 states that
	"there is no doubt that the cost of accommodation in central London has in recent years risen faster than the overnight allowance. So have rents and the price of properties. In the past, the SSRB has assumed that accommodation in a 3-star hotel would be a broadly appropriate benchmark for both MPs and peers."
	It adds that, on that basis, a House of Lords overnight allowance
	"of at least £110 and preferably £120 now seems appropriate. This seems a reasonable estimate."
	The SSRB accepts that both hon. Members' additional costs allowance and peers' overnight allowance have been calculated in the past on the basis of the cost of a three-star hotel. It concludes that a 42 per cent. increase in the House of Lords allowance—from £84 to £120—is right.
	Hon. Members may consider that using the cost of a three-star hotel as the basis for calculation might have been appropriate in the past but that a better indication of how our allowance is spent should now be the change in rents or property prices over the years. If, over the past few years, those increases had been substantially lower than increases in the cost of three-star hotels, I might concede that my amendment was too generous. Figures from the Library show that the average rent in the fourth quarter of last year for a one-bedroom flat in inner London was £275 a week. By itself, that would come to more than the current allowance.
	The increase in central-London rent levels from the fourth quarter of 1995 to the fourth quarter of 2000 amounts to 39.36 per cent. That is a period of five years, and the rise is only fractionally lower than the proposed 42 per cent. rise in the House of Lords overnight allowance, which is based on a seven-year period. In general, London property prices rose by 130 per cent. between 1994 and 2001, and prices for flats rose by 152 per cent.
	Even if the SSRB were to abandon the three-star hotel basis for calculation of these allowances, and move to a calculation based on rents or property prices, there is no evidence that what they would find would force them to conclude that a rise of 42 per cent. was over-generous, given the increase in costs over the past few years.
	We must get away from the idea that any increase in the maximum figure is necessarily applicable to everyone. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a telling point when he said that we are talking about allowances. The maximum figure is the limit up to which a claim can be made, not an automatic payment made to everyone.
	Some hon. Members may not claim the maximum figure for the current additional costs allowance, and they would not be affected. Others may claim up to the maximum and have no further expense, and they will not be affected either. However, I already know that some hon. Members spend more on these costs than they can claim. Some hon. Members will find that their rents will go up so much in the next few years, given the current rising trend, that they will go beyond the amount contained in the proposal. Certainly, some new Members of Parliament will find that property prices have doubled in the past few years. They will face a difficult problem if we do not resolve this matter.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a very interesting offer earlier when he said that we could always refer this matter to the SSRB now. As I said then, I should have been much happier had the additional costs allowance been so referred a few months ago, along with all the other allowances.
	I could have plucked a figure out of thin air for the amount by which hon. Members' additional costs should be increased, referred that number to the SSRB and delayed matters for a while. However, I think that I have been able to show that the amendment is based on what the SSRB has done in the past. Its direct comparisons have caused it to determine that peers' overnight allowance and hon. Members' additional costs allowance existed for the same purpose. In its most recent report, the SSRB states that, traditionally, it has used the same basis to calculate both allowances. My conclusion, therefore, is that it is fair to say that the same percentage increase should apply to both now.
	My right hon. Friend might suggest that, if the matter were to be referred back to the SSRB, that body might find a different comparator based on rents or property prices. I think that I have drawn a fair and reasonable comparison between the allowances that I have described.
	Delay in implementation of the proposal in the amendment could cause considerable problems for many hon. Members. Traditionally, new hon. Members go looking for property to rent or buy in the summer period, when returning hon. Members consider their accommodation arrangements for the next five years. It would place an unfair burden on hon. Members to tell them that nothing can be done over the summer, that the proposal has had to be referred to the SSRB and will not come back until the autumn, and that Christmas is the earliest date by which we might know what the increase is to be.
	It would be unfair to delay, especially as I think that I have shown that the comparison proposed in the amendment is one that the SSRB has made in the past. My amendment is based on the information that that body has used to calculate the overnight allowance for Members of the House of Lords.

Evan Harris: I rise to speak briefly to amendment (b) on parliamentary pensions, which is tabled in my name and the names of many other hon. Members from all parties. I am grateful to those who have signed it and to those who have indicated that they would have signed it if they had had more time.
	I stress that I have no particular vested interest in the proposal. The records show that I am the marrying kind, and that as a result no one with whom I am connected would benefit from the change.
	Recommendation 8 of the report states that trustees should canvass the views of members of the parliamentary contributory pension fund on the issue of survivors pensions for unmarried partners, but what will happen after views have been canvassed? The motion merely calls on trustees to consider recommendation 8, together with recommendations 4 and 6. It does not speak about how best to implement the recommendation, as it does with recommendation 2. Opinion in this House would invite the trustees to go further and to act. That is why I thought it appropriate to give the House an opportunity, through a Division or by general assent, to give a view on the matter.
	This proposal relates to the domestic arrangements of hon. Members in this day and age and is a reflection of current society. Also, we should be cautious not to penalise those who are bereaved, those who are the partners of a member who has died but do not happen to be married to them. By passing the amendment, we will indicate our wish to see our own practice reflect best practice in the private sector and the aspirations of those in the public sector.
	There is a long-term TUC campaign that the House of Commons Library note describes as a pension provision for unmarried partners. A document, "Pensions and prejudice—how public sector pension schemes discriminate against non-married partners", argues for the introduction of benefits for non-married adult survivors in public sector pensions schemes. For those who feel it important to see that the Government do not oppose such proposals, it should be noted that the Government's own Green Paper—called, interestingly, "Partnerships in pensions"—states that the Government would be prepared to consider how practical arrangements can be devised for achieving the extension of eligibility for survivors' pensions to unmarried partners in the context of a statutory scheme.
	The Government, in their evidence, indicated that they are prepared to consider extending eligibility for survivors' pensions to unmarried partners of members of statutory schemes, provided that the members are prepared to meet the additional costs. I believe that we should indicate that we are prepared to meet those small additional costs.
	This proposal will not benefit the majority of Members; I accept that. This will be, in effect, an altruistic act by many current contributors to a minority, but a minority that exists in all parties and whose domestic arrangements, which reflect a significant proportion of current society, are not those of living with a married partner. It would not come at a cost to the Exchequer and it would satisfy those who worship private sector practice—as, now, probably a majority of private sector schemes have such a measure—and those who seek common cause with public sector workers.
	In conclusion, the key question is the existence of a committed relationship and the financial dependence and/or interdependence of that partner; the key factor is not the presence or absence of a marriage certificate or the sexuality of the bereaved person. We have an opportunity to indicate that we want to go down a non-discriminatory path, which is in keeping with best practice in the private and public sectors in this day and age. I warmly commend amendment (b) to motion No. 4 to the House.

Robin Cook: We have had a very good debate and I am glad that the time allowed for the debate has permitted all those with selected amendments to speak to them.
	I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I am unable to respond to all the questions that were put to me in the time available. However, I shall endeavour to respond in writing to all Members who put questions to me. I shall try to respond to some of the questions from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who asked one or two questions of detail.
	First—I appreciate that this is important in terms of how Members may approach the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley)—the hon. Lady asked about the rates of pay and the job descriptions. It would be our understanding that the Department of Finance and Administration would implement, broadly speaking, the rates of pay as set out in appendix E. We would envisage that being done within the range of a band of, perhaps, £2,000 above to £2,000 below the median point set out in appendix E, so there would be some flexibility for Members to nominate the particular figure for a member of staff.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked also about insurance. I reassure her that employer's liability and personal accident will continue to be centrally covered. Of course local matters, such as insurance cover for the structure and contents of a constituency office, will be for Members to find out of the incidental expenses provision, which, again, is a matter to bear in mind when considering the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.
	I say to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and others who took part in the debate, that I very much welcome the support that has been shown for the Speaker's advisory panel and the recognition that that will provide us with a degree of flexibility to look at some of the difficult questions that arise in the process of transition. I welcome also the maturity shown in the debate and the recognition that there are bound to be teething problems. Inevitably, there will be difficult cases and it is right that, through the advisory panel, we should have the mechanism to consider these and, through the Speaker, the ability to assist in putting them right and providing a remedy.
	In terms of the first two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), on consultancies, I say that, in the event that she does not press them, I will undertake that they are considered early within the advisory panel to consider what remedy is available to us. Her amendments, and the others before the House, are House matters.

Jacqui Lait: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Robin Cook: If the hon. Lady will be very brief, I will give way, but I only have five minutes.

Jacqui Lait: That is absolutely understood and I will be brief. What about the contracts that we already have with consultants? If we move immediately to the new pay scale, will we have to break those contracts?

Robin Cook: There is specific provision in the SSRB report for central assistance to Members who find that they have legally binding contractual commitments, be it with an IT provider, a member of staff or a consultancy. Those individual cases will be considered to see if we can find a way forward.
	The amendments are, of course, for the House to decide. On a number of them, I offer no view to the House. However, there are some on which I would invite the House to reflect before supporting them. I must say to the hon. Member for Beckenham that that applies very strongly to her amendment (l) on the IT package. It would be impractical for us to enter into the individual commitments that she wants. If we are to have a centrally funded and managed procurement system, we cannot at the same time, in practical terms, provide that degree of individual response. I hope that she will not press that amendment.
	On the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, we take no view. It is for the House to decide and for Members to judge in the light of their experience.
	I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that I am willing to put the additional cost to the SSRB and to invite them to respond urgently. I am pleased that he regards that as a tempting offer; I hope that I can tempt him further. [Laughter.] I hope that I can prove more tempting to my hon. Friend than the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. If he does push his amendment, we will have to explain and justify to the public a 42 per cent. increase that does not proceed from any independent assessment. Personally, I would feel much more comfortable if we first went through such a process.
	I invite other Members to join me in resisting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). As I understood his speech, he believes that we are paid too much and should be paid less. The effect of the amendment, of course, would be to pay us more. This is what, in an earlier phase of his career, he would have described as an inherent contradiction in the system. I would strongly suggest that he not press his amendment; otherwise we may be obliged to advise the electors of Sunderland, South that he believes that Members of Parliament should be paid more.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) spoke with authority as a trustee, and I fully respect that, but the SSRB considered and rejected the course of action that he proposed, and the Government have grave concerns about the impact on public spending if the proposal were to become a bargaining point across the public sector.
	Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact that the overall package is a dramatic change for the better. It involves higher ceilings for our staff costs, it involves better pay for the great majority of Members' staff and it gives a sound basis for access to modern technology. Whatever view hon. Members may form on the amendments, I very much hope that they will support the proposals, so that we can bring the support services of the House into the 21st century and enable us to serve our constituents better.
	It being Four o'clock, Mr. Speaker pursuant to Order [this day], put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) wish to press amendment (j)?

Jacqui Lait: I am minded to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I should mention that if her amendment were agreed, I would not be able to put the question on amendment (o). Does the hon. Lady realise that?

Jacqui Lait: I have had no discussions with the mover of amendment (o).

Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not approached by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). If I had been, I would certainly have recommended that she did not press her amendment to a vote, because then the other amendments will fall and that is not—I believe—the feeling of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Having heard the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), what is the hon. Lady's intention?

Jacqui Lait: Having heard the hon. Gentleman's comment, I shall not press the amendment, but I hope that its substance will be addressed by the Leader of the House.
	Amendments made: (o) to the motion on members' allowances, insurance &c, in paragraph (2)(c), leave out from 'above' to 'these' and insert:
	'should not in any financial year exceed—
	(i) £70,000 in the case of a Member representing a London constituency; and
	(ii) £60,000 in the case of any other Member, plus £3,500 in respect of each full-time (or full-time equivalent) staff person employed by that Member whose duties are wholly or mainly required to be performed within Greater London, provided that the aggregate sum payable in respect of any Member shall not exceed £70,000.'.
	(d) in paragraph (2)(d), leave out '£14,000' and insert '£18,000'.—[Mr. Soley.]
	Amendment proposed: (l), at end of paragraph (f), insert—
	'(h) that Members should be consulted on their IT needs and requirements before any contracts are let centrally; that the central purchase of any IT equipment should be subject to public procurement requirements; that a wide range of provision is offered and updated as required by each Member and that Members should have access to more than one IT support service of their own choosing.'.—[Mrs. Lait.]
	Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
	Amendment proposed: (e) in paragraph (2), at end insert—
	'(2A) The House of Commons Additional Costs Allowance should be increased by the same proportion as that proposed for the House of Lords Overnight Allowance under Recommendation 16 of the Review Body on Senior Salaries Report No. 48.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 117.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Main Question, as amended, agreed to,

MEMBERS' PAY (EXPRESSION OF OPINION)

Amendment proposed: (a), to leave out from the second 'House' to end and insert—
	'(1) the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' salaries be rescinded; and
	(2) for each year starting with 1st April from 2002 onwards, the salary of a Member shall be increased by the average of the percentage increase recommended in that year by the Nurses', School Teachers', and Doctors' and Dentists' Pay Review Bodies.'—[Mr. Mullin.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 260.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 42.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
	(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st March 2002 the salary of a Member shall be increased by £2,000 per annum.
	(2) That salary shall be increased by a further £2,000 per annum from 1st April 2002.
	(3) The increases referred to above shall be additional to any increase resulting from the operation of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS

Amendment proposed: (a), at end to add—
	"And that this House further endorses the recommendation of the Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund that the accrual rate be increased to 1/40th and that the additional cost be borne by the Exchequer".—[Mr. Butterfill.]
	The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 172.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendment proposed: (b), at end to add—
	"And that this House believes that survivors' benefits could apply to unmarried partners as well as spouses"—[Dr. Harris.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 33.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

MEMBERS' INSURANCE: REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR BLACKBURN

Resolved,
	That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made to reimburse the Right honourable Member for Blackburn for reasonable legal expenditure including damages arising in consequence of an action brought against him alleging vicarious liability for an act of negligence committed in the course of his duties as a Member of this House.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]

MEMBERS' PAY (MONEY RESOLUTION)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Resolved,
	That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
	(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 20th June 2001 and ending with 31st March 2002 the salary of a Member shall be increased by £2,000 per annum.
	(2) That salary shall be increased by a further £2,000 per annum from 1st April 2002.
	(3) The increases referred to above shall be additional to any increase resulting from the operation of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]

Select Committees

Robin Cook: I beg to move,
	That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:

A. Select Committee Quorums

S.O. No. 124 (Quorum of Select Committees):
	in line 1, at the beginning, insert—
	'(A) Except as otherwise provided, the quorum of a select committee shall be three or a quarter of the number of its members, whichever is the greater; and in calculating the quorum fractions shall be counted as one.
	(B) Where more than two select committees or sub-committees thereof meet concurrently for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, pursuant to Standing Order (Select Committees: power to work with other committees), the quorum of each shall be two.'.
	S.O. No. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting):
	in line 5, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 6.
	S.O. No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee):
	leave out paragraph (10).
	S.O. No. 142 (Domestic Committees):
	in line 9, leave out from 'Members' to end of the line.
	S.O. No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee):
	in line 19, leave out from 'Members' to end of the line.
	S.O. No. 145 (Liaison Committee):
	leave out paragraph (5).
	S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
	in line 10, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 11.
	S.O. No. 147 (Procedure Committee):
	leave out paragraph (3).
	S.O. No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts):
	in line 7, leave out from 'Members' to 'The' in line 8.
	S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
	in line 7, after 'concerned', insert 'and'.
	in line 8, leave out from 'committee' to 'shall'.
	in the table in paragraph (2), leave out the fourth column ('Quorum').
	leave out paragraph (5).
	S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
	in line 9, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 10.

B. Select Committees (Power to Work with Other Committees)

That—
	(1) The following Standing Order (Select Committees: power to work with other committees) be made:
	'(1) Any select committee or sub-committee with power to send for persons, papers and records shall have power—
	(a) to communicate its evidence to any other select committee or sub-committee of either House of Parliament; provided that evidence from the National Audit Office shall first have been agreed between that Office and the government department or departments concerned;
	(b) to meet concurrently with any such committee or sub-committee for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence; and
	(c) to meet concurrently with any other select committee of this House for the purpose of considering a draft report.
	(2) Where two or more select committees have agreed reports to the House in identical terms, those reports may be published as a joint report; and
	(2) That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:'
	S.O. No. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting):
	in line 16, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 33, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
	S.O. No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee):
	leave out lines 116 to 126.
	S.O. No. 142 (Domestic Committees):
	in line 23, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 40, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
	S.O. No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee):
	leave out paragraphs (12) and (13).
	S.O. No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee):
	in line 28, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 45, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
	S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
	leave out lines 21 to 26.
	S.O. No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts):
	leave out paragraphs (3) and (4).
	S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
	leave out lines 29 to 42.
	in line 47, leave out from 'proceedings' to 'and' in line 52.
	S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
	leave out lines 23 to 34.

C. Select Committees Related to Government Departments

That Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments) be amended, by leaving out items 1, 4, 5 and 13 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following items at the appropriate places:
	'Education and Skills/Department for Education and Skills/11';
	'Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/17';
	'Transport, Local Government and the Regions/Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions/17'; and
	'Work and Pensions/Department for Work and Pensions/11'.

D. Select Committees (Power to Appoint Sub-Committees)

That the following amendments to Standing Orders be made:
	S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
	in line 29, at end add the following words:
	'(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.
	(6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
	(7) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.
	S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
	leave out lines 9 to 14, and insert the following words:
	'(3) Each select committee appointed under this order shall have the power to appoint a sub-committee, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee shall have power to appoint two sub-committees.'.
	S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
	in line 34, at end, add the following words:
	'(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.
	(6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
	(7) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss motion No. 8:

European Standing Committees

That the following amendments be made to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees):
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Agriculture, Fisheries and Food', and insert 'Environment, Food and Rural Affairs'.
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Environment, Transport and the Regions', and insert 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions'.
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Scottish, Welsh', and insert 'Scotland, Wales'.
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Social Security', and insert 'Work and Pensions'.
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Education and Employment', and insert 'Education and Skills'.

Robin Cook: It may be convenient for the House, especially as so many hon. Members are heading in that direction, if I say that an explanatory memorandum is available in the Vote Office that details the terms and significance of the motion. During last Thursday's debate on programming, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) suggested that an explanatory memorandum would have been valuable. I am pleased to say that we have been able to respond, and I hope that colleagues who read that testimonial to him will appreciate it. For technical and legal reasons, we have not yet resolved whether we can put it on the Order Paper, but we shall continue to consider that.
	I can be brief, because I believe that the motion reflects a broad consensus in many quarters of the House, although I may not carry everyone with me on that. I discussed the motion with the three senior Members appointed by the Liaison Committee in the previous Parliament to continue the work of preparing for the Select Committees and, save for one modest change of detail, the motion fully implements the table and schedule that they presented to me. I hope that the motion will achieve consensus and gain the support of the House.
	The motion has two main consequences. First, it will reconfigure the departmental Select Committees so that they track the departmental changes in Whitehall. I anticipate no disagreement with that, especially given the modest attendance. Plainly, those who remain fully understand such matters and know perfectly well that there is no point in having departmental Select Committees that reflect the Departments of the previous Parliament rather than those of this. I hope that hon. Members will support that.
	The motion's second main consequence is several modest but important steps that will give Select Committees more freedom and flexibility over their arrangements in two principal ways. First, Select Committees will have the freedom to appoint Sub-Committees. Until now, we have specified by a decision of the House which departmental Select Committees can form a Sub-Committee. Given the importance and stability of Select Committees, that is now unnecessary and old fashioned. We are leaving it to Select Committees to decide for themselves whether forming a Sub-Committee at a particular time and on a particular issue would be of value. That must be right.
	Secondly, we are giving every Select Committee the right to form a Joint Committee with any other Select Committee. Again, hitherto, a specific decision of the House was required to enable a Select Committee to form a Joint Committee. Last year, Liaison Committee reports drew attention to the fact that the evolution of government towards joined-up government had created cross-cutting initiatives that were difficult for a Select Committee to track in isolation. They advocated more flexibility in enabling Select Committees to track joined-up government through Joint Committees. The motion gives Select Committees the freedom to form Joint Committees.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend referred to the Liaison Committee report and said quite rightly that these welcome reforms will have wide support within the House. Will he also reflect on the fact that many hon. Members representing all parties have subscribed to early-day motion 50—and many more will—which calls on the Government to reconsider the Liaison Committee report, particularly those parts of it that deal with the selection of Select Committees? Will he use this opportunity to give the House an undertaking that those matters will be seriously considered and brought back to the House for debate as a matter of urgency?

Robin Cook: I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that I look at the Order Paper first thing every day and have noted with interest the number of names attached to the early-day motion. I have said to my hon. and learned Friend privately and on the record at business questions that I am willing to look again at some of the issues and some of the recommendations made by the Liaison Committee in the previous Parliament and will want to return to that in the autumn, perhaps through the Modernisation Committee and through other channels. However, as I have always stressed, the important and urgent business is to get the Select Committees started and to get them under way. Therefore, I have to do so under the existing process of selection and approval. I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient on further changes until we resume after the summer recess.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. He has just talked about Joint Committees and greater flexibility. Will he share with the House whether he has in mind a Joint Committee of the Procedure Committee, which I had the honour to chair in the previous Parliament, and the Modernisation Committee, which he will chair in this Parliament and of which I was a member in the previous Parliament, because quite clearly there is a lot of common ground between the two Select Committees?

Robin Cook: As I understand the motion, there is nothing to prevent those two Select Committees, should they choose to do so, from examining some work together. I look forward very much to working with the hon. Gentleman on some of these issues. I hope that he will return to the Modernisation Committee in which he played a distinguished and very creative role in the previous Parliament—[Interruption.] I hope that I have not done the hon. Gentleman any damage by that comment. If it is helpful, I will now attack him in order to restore his standing with his party.
	I should refer to one other consequence of the motion before I turn to the amendments. The opening passage of the motion addresses in some detail the quorums of Select Committees. The broad effect of that passage is to place the quorums of all Select Committees on a consistent basis, set, broadly speaking, at a quarter of the membership. That will be helpful in a number of Select Committees that have had to struggle with a rather larger quorum, which sometimes has not been realistic in terms of the attendance. In particular, the proposed changes on quorums will be of great value to the Joint Committees, which under the present rules have to produce the full quorum of each of the Select Committees from which they are drawn. The proposed provision creates a new quorum for a Joint Committee in its own right, which will enable it to get on with its work with confidence.

Eric Forth: I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. If Select Committees are as important as Members like to claim, how is it that the Leader of the House can find himself using the phrase that Select Committees struggle to get a quorum? Does he not find it strange that these very important Committees of the House that do very important work, often in far-flung parts of the world, struggle to make a quorum? Would people not be entitled to be slightly suspicious that if we cannot even make a quorum in those Committees, Members themselves do not value their work very much?

Robin Cook: I do not think that the problem of making a quorum arises very much for departmental Select Committees, but the House appoints a large number of Select Committees, not every meeting of which is fascinating to every Member and most of which are not held in far-flung places. However, I would not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's central point, if I can refashion it in a slightly more diplomatic way, that right hon. and hon. Members also have to accept their responsibility for ensuring the status and the good work of Select Committees. In its report last year, the Liaison Committee had some strong words to say about the importance of attendance at Select Committees.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has tabled two amendments, the second of which proposes that every Sub-Committee should contain a member of the Liberal Democrat party or another minority party. I submit that the trend of the motion that I have put before the House is to give Select Committees more discretion, more flexibility and more freedom. It is for them to decide whom to put on a Sub-Committee. As a generality, I hope and expect that they would include a representative of the minority parties in any such Sub-Committee, but it would be wrong in principle and inconsistent with the trend of the motion if we were to make it a blanket prescription by the House.
	The hon. Gentleman's other amendment calls for an increase in the membership of Select Committees, typically from 11 to 13. I understand the broad, general case for an increase in the membership of Select Committees, which was argued with vigour by the Hansard Society in its recent report. As I said, I shall want to return to and consult on a number of such issues in the autumn through the work of the Modernisation Committee. In considering further reforms, I shall be happy to examine whether there is a case for larger numbers on Select Committees, as was advocated by the Hansard Society, although we must bear in mind the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and ensure that we appoint willing members who will attend the Committees.

Desmond Swayne: If it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to reconsider the membership of Select Committees with a view to increasing the numbers, is it proper now to reduce the quorum?

Robin Cook: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. The quorum is typically set at a quarter of the membership, so if we increased the numbers, the quorum would automatically rise. The hon. Gentleman can set his mind at rest on that difficulty.
	If we are to return to some of these matters and to consult on and discuss them, I hope that we can reserve the larger question of the size of Select Committees until then. I am keen to get the Select Committees started in the next two weeks, so I am anxious that there is no unnecessary controversy in the way.

Andrew Stunell: What time scale does the Leader of the House have for this further review? He may agree with me that reviews have often been promised but seldom delivered.

Robin Cook: We have gone at a fairly cracking pace on some of these issues in the past three weeks, especially on how to proceed with Select Committees. If no progress is made, it will not be for want of trying or for lack of intention on our part, but I cannot offer a major change in Select Committees without consultation and without broad consensus.
	The size of a Select Committee could be contentious. I do not want to reduce what I hope will be a pleasant House of Commons debate to a partisan affair, but I cannot resist pointing out that a membership of 13 is the figure that most benefits the Liberal Democrats. Under the present distribution of seats in the House, 13 is the first point at which the Liberal Democrats become entitled to two seats, not one. That figure applies until we reach Select Committees with a membership of 21. Some hon. Members may think that if we are going to go for 13, we might as well go for 15 or 17, which would provide added seats for members of other parties, including the large number of Back Benchers in my party who may not otherwise secure a place on a Select Committee.

Paul Tyler: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, and there may be strong pressure for that from Labour Members. The trigger of 13 enables us to include a Liberal Democrat as well as a member of one of the minority parties. Up to that point, it is impossible for both groups to be represented, and that is a real difficulty.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I think he may share my view that if we are to have a membership of 13 to accommodate that problem, the view in other quarters may be that we should have up to 15 or 17 members to resolve other under-representations. I ask that we reserve this surprisingly contentious question until we can consider Select Committees in the round. In the meantime, I hope that the House will approve the motions that I have submitted to it.

William Cash: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at an essay by Sir Edward Fellowes? It appears in a book to which Bernard Crick and others have contributed, entitled "The Commons in Transition", and was written in about 1970. I will not go into the details, but Sir Edward said that in 1886—that may seem a long time ago, but the consequences are still with us—the power of the Whips, in other words the handing over of control of Standing Orders to the Executive rather than the Speaker, had left the House of Commons in a parlous condition. I paraphrase Sir Edward, but that is what he said.
	Would the right hon. Gentleman consider this possibility? Might it not be highly desirable, in the interest of the independence of Back Benchers, to reach a decision enabling them—in consultation with the Government—to ensure the provision of more of that independence? That would be in line with the general principles of the Liaison Committee, but would apply to all Select Committee matters.

Robin Cook: I am even now compiling my reading list for my summer holiday. I shall ensure that Sir Edward's article is included.
	Many complex and thoughtful proposals have of course been presented by the Liaison Committee, the Hansard Society and the Norton commission, which was established by the hon. Gentleman's party. We should reflect on many of those proposals, and see whether we can find ways of making incremental improvements to the system. I certainly agree that we should obtain the right balance between the Government's ability to secure the legislation on the basis of which they were elected, and the House's right to scrutinise that and other Government legislation.
	I believe that the timetable for Select Committees with which we are pressing ahead demonstrates our good faith in that regard. As I announced earlier today, we intend to confirm nominations on Monday week, which will enable the Committees to meet before the House rises on 20 July. That will be the greatest speed at which any Government have set up Select Committees following the commencement of a new Parliament.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Robin Cook: I will, but then I must allow the debate to proceed.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My intervention will be very brief.
	We are delighted by my right hon. Friend's clear indication that he appreciates the importance of Select Committees. He will understand that we also place much reliance on his undertaking to examine some of the other aspects of the Liaison Committee's report, to which the House will wish to return in due course.

Robin Cook: I am delighted that I gave way to my hon. Friend. I hope that I shall have her support, as well as that of others, when we return from the recess.
	The commitment that we have made in regard to Select Committees reflects the importance we attach to scrutiny. It also reflects my own view that scrutiny of Government does not necessarily constitute an adversarial relationship between Executive and Parliament—certainly not through the Select Committee system.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned Bernard Crick. Some time ago, Bernard Crick said that parliamentary control of the Executive was not the enemy of effective government, but the condition of effective government. I believe that we have a common interest in ensuring that we arrive at a proper, effective system of scrutiny through Select Committees, and it is in that spirit that I commend the motion. I hope that it will command consensus support.

Dominic Grieve: The last words of the Leader of the House were attractive, if I may put it that way. I was happy to hear them, and happy to note the spirit in which I believe they were uttered.
	All I can say on behalf of the official Opposition is that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will indeed go away and consider that reading list. I remind him that it was suggested not just by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) but by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who, I seem to recall, quoted the same source in an earlier debate on programme motions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do that reading, because he has an opportunity to provide leadership, and because he could gain the appreciation of members of all parties for his work.
	I do not want to take up a lot of the House's time. It is clear that the measures that have been proposed are very sensible. They all appear to be minor improvements on the way in which the Select Committee system runs. The measure on quorums is exceptionally sensible in enabling one to avoid making some recondite calculations, which seems to have occurred on previous occasions. Another measure may be the chrysalis of a better future for Select Committees, enabling them to link up with others and to set up Sub-Committee structures. That is a real improvement. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for having taken that on.
	I was slightly amused by the Leader of the House's comments about the need for Members to attend Select Committees. I agree, but I am sure that he will agree that people attend Select Committees in measure of their relevance and, as he rightly said, the interest that is generated. On the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, we were amused to study the way in which certain Cabinet sub-committees worked under the previous Government. One was about greening government and brought the Ministers of various Departments—the green Ministers—together. It was trumpeted as an important organ of government. We discovered after a certain amount of questioning that, although some 14 out of 16 departmental Ministers charged with responsibilities in the committee had turned up on the first day for the group photograph, thereafter they had sent along permanent officials and had not turned up. Presumably, that was a reflection of the effectiveness that they perceived the committee to have.
	It must be the same thing with Select Committees. We may trumpet them as important. They may look important on paper, but if their recommendations are routinely placed in the lower tray and not looked at, if their work is not recognised, and if on top of that they are perceived ultimately to be under enormous Government control—subtle but real—they will not succeed in evolving further. After a commendable period when Norman St. John-Stevas was Leader of the House and Select Committees took off, one has the impression that they have to an extent stagnated, except perhaps in so far as the work of Committees has been extended: they can look across different Government Departments.
	If things are to progress along the lines that the Leader of the House mentioned, the Liaison Committee's report of 2000 and its further report of 2001, in which it reviewed the progress of Select Committees, need to be given proper consideration. Part I, the introduction, of the report of 8 March 2001 deals with the point about Select Committee membership being under Government and Executive control. It says:
	"We felt the time was right. Improvements could be based upon twenty years of practical experience. The Government was committed to a programme of constitutional change, including modernisation of the House. With a sharp decline in attendance in the Chamber, it was all the more important to stress an area of the House's work that is seen by the general public as valuable and constructive."
	Paragraph 6 says:
	"the Government's response was disappointing."
	Paragraph 21 states:
	"It is clear that the system for nominating members of select committees must be changed. It is also clear that there is widespread support for such a change."
	I am sure that the Leader of the House will have to acknowledge that there is no suggestion that that support has in any way eroded. I welcome the measures that he has introduced, but they should be the first building block towards some sensible changes.
	I fully appreciate that the Executive and Government are bound to be wary of measures that give an impression that they might lose control. However, there is much good will towards looking constructively at those matters—if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government wish to do so. We are in the Government's hands, and it would be very nice if there were an opportunity for debate in the next 12 months—and not just in Opposition time, as on the previous occasion—in which we could start sensibly to make progress. If we do, I am convinced that the Government will ultimately benefit. As Lord Norton said, if scrutiny and transparency are improved, a good Government are the ultimate winners. Without such improvement, and however much I might welcome today's proposals, we are just tinkering at the edges.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I shall not detain the House for long, as I welcome the motions.
	The House of Commons does itself real credit when it takes its work seriously, but sometimes we are not perceived as doing so. There are all sorts of reasons why people outside the House do not know what goes on here. They know little about our procedures and there is no particular reason why they should. In some instances, they interpret our role as consisting solely of the work that we are seen to do in our constituencies.
	The reality is that, if one makes laws, this is the place to make them. If one scrutinises the work of the Executive, this is the place to do so. It is absolutely essential that any self-confident Government should be prepared to allow that scrutiny in Select Committees, by people who have a vested interest not in causing unnecessary difficulty, but in ensuring that the truth and the responsible decisions of Government are fully and closely examined.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—it is very good that we as a Government have been prepared to support the rapid setting up of the Select Committees. It is precisely because people outside see the movement away from the Chamber and into Select Committees that the Select Committee on Liaison decided that it was time to produce a report. The report is important, and I hope that we shall return to it and examine it closely.
	This is one of the few Parliaments in the world in which close examination of the Executive is carried out by people selected by their own Government. We can argue about the niceties of how people become members of Select Committees, but a great deal of control is still exercised over who is selected for which role and when.
	I happen to think that the House of Commons is now quite a grown-up institution, and can trust all its Back Benchers. It is the consensus at which they arrive, the work that they do together and the evidence that they take which inform their Select Committee reports. That is absolutely essential to the good working of the Government. A good Government are confident enough to answer for their decisions in public and to trust Members of Parliament to say things that are not always comfortable or flattering. A good Government are determined enough to ensure that their work can be examined with care, because they know that they have taken the right decisions to protect the rights and interests of the electorate.
	This Government can set an important precedent by giving the House of Commons such trust. I and my colleagues on the previous Liaison Committee were privileged to serve, and to have the chance to talk to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whips about what we wanted to achieve. Only when such scrutiny is available, and there is such confidence between the Executive and individual Members, will we get change.
	This place evolves—it changes all the time—from a position of confidence. I know that Her Majesty's Government will allow us to return to this matter in the autumn.

Andrew Stunell: In many ways, this is a more important topic than the one on which we spent the earlier part of the day, even though there may be less excitement and Member interest in the question of how the House is to come to terms with an ever stronger Executive—that is not a party political point, and the process has been going on for decades—and a Parliament that finds it more and more difficult to hold them to account. I agree with the Leader of the House that a good Government have nothing to fear, and in fact a great deal to gain, from close examination.
	I am not speaking on behalf of a party, as this is a matter for Members at large, but there are issues that directly affect the capacity of certain Members to participate in such holding to account. We warmly welcome the motions and we are delighted at the rapid pace of bringing the Select Committees back into full use, but we think that there is scope to go further. My amendments set out how that might be achieved.
	We agree that the reconfiguration of Select Committees to match Departments is right, and that there should be some Committees with a membership of 17. We welcome the capacity for all the Committees to have Sub-Committees and believe that increasing the use of Joint Committees is very worth while. Now, however, I come to the need for the amendments. I apologise for the length of one and the brevity of the other. The complexity of our Standing Orders means that it is hard to express one's intention in plain words.
	The intention is that the smaller variety of Select Committee should be increased in size so as to have two representatives from third and minority parties. The purpose is not to seek a benefit for the Liberal Democrats—[Hon. Members: "Of course not."] Hon. Members are clearly sceptical, but we could equally have tabled amendments that directly paralleled the proposals of the Hansard Society or the alternative laid out by the Leader of the House—that all Select Committees should consist of 17. One reason for not doing that was the caution shown by Conservative Front Benchers in discussions about increasing the number of Select Committees in the previous Parliament.
	When the Modernisation Committee was considering ways of improving the scrutiny of European legislation, and was minded to propose that there should be five European Scrutiny Committees, to try to get to grips with the great volume of legislation coming from Europe, the Conservative party argued for a lesser growth in Select Committees, and said that it would not be able to provide the additional members.
	Perhaps in a new Parliament the Conservatives are more willing, or perhaps more able, to participate in Select Committee proceedings, but one reason for our proposals was to save them the embarrassment of being unable to provide the additional members. I would not be concerned should the House decide that a larger size of Select Committee, with a greater representation from the Conservatives, was appropriate.

Dominic Grieve: There was no embarrassment on the part of the official Opposition in making the points that we did. Our points reflected the reality of staffing Select Committees, participating in Standing Committees and ensuring representation in the Chamber. It would have been irresponsible to say that we could do more. My recollection of the Select Committee on which I served is that the attendance of members of the hon. Gentleman's party tended to be rather less regular, and more à la carte, than ours.

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me, confirming my assertion that Conservative Members in the previous Parliament had difficulty servicing Select Committees and that that was the main reason for their objection to increased European scrutiny and the creation of two additional Committees. I simply pray that in aid of a proposal that would leave Conservative representation on Select Committees at its current level. However, if alternative proposals are introduced that would increase the level of Conservative representation, I shall be happy to hear the arguments.

Paul Tyler: It is true that for a long time the Conservative party found it difficult to get former Ministers and senior members to serve on these Committees. It is understandable that hon. Members who have held great offices of state might find it difficult to serve in that rather menial capacity, but if they now take a different view, we must welcome it.

Andrew Stunell: The point being debated is not the substantive point of the amendments, but hon. Members seem to consider that this is in some way a self-serving amendment. It is not: we should be very willing to have the representation on Select Committees of Opposition parties increased. I take the point made by the Leader of the House, which was that Labour Back Benchers might be just as effective at providing opposition on occasions. One hopes that they might be more effective than they were in the previous Parliament, but such things change.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) noted, the representation secured for third and minority parties covers nine political parties in this House. It is therefore necessary for consideration to be given to the cause of all those parties, and as result, smaller Committees contain no Liberal Democrat Members.

Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the House would be more persuaded of the enthusiasm of his party and other Opposition parties if there were more evidence of their attendance at this debate? I find it difficult to believe what the hon. Gentleman says about the enthusiasm of his and other parties when I see the empty Benches surrounding him. Moreover, if he raises once more the alleged differential in attendance between his colleagues and mine, I shall invite him to examine the public record of attendance at all Select Committees. I think that that would leave him very embarrassed.

Andrew Stunell: It is always as well to do the sums before making such an intervention. In fact, a higher proportion of Liberal Democrat Members than Conservatives is now present in the Chamber. I am not sure that the argument is won entirely on statistics. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This argument is getting slightly circular. Perhaps we can get back to the important business before the House.

Andrew Stunell: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and apologise if I have led the House in an inappropriate direction.
	Amendment (b) deals with the membership of Sub-Committees. I understand the reluctance of the Leader of the House to give instructions to Select Committees on how to form Sub-Committees. When Sub-Committees are established—I hope they will be—to deal with specific tasks or responsibilities in the Select Committee's overall remit, they will contain a sub-set of members of the Select Committee. However, if the membership of Select Committees is maintained at 11, the difficulty will arise that, if two or more Sub-Committees are established—and hon. Members are not entitled to serve on more than one of those Committees—it is axiomatic that one of them will contain only Labour and Conservative Members. That would weaken the accountability and effectiveness not only of the Select Committee, but of the Government, who must be challenged at every point.
	We welcome the speed with which the Government have tabled the motion, and its intention. We shall certainly support it, but there is also legitimate interest in getting improved accountability, and support for our amendments will achieve that.

Andrew Bennett: I am pleased to have the chance to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on getting the motion before the House so quickly, and I hope that we can have the Committees in being in the last week before the recess.
	On the question of the quorum, I welcome the fact that that has been made flexible, but there are two sides to the question. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that if a Select Committee is usually well attended, the quorum should not be a problem. That is correct, but I can remember two occasions in the last Parliament when there might have been a difficulty with the quorum.
	On one occasion, a Wednesday morning, there was the funeral of an ex-Member, and clearly a lot of members of the Select Committee wanted to attend that. On the other hand, witnesses had travelled a considerable distance and it would also have been unfair to cancel the Committee at that point; but there was a chance of not having a quorum in that Select Committee.
	The other problem is when a Select Committee meets at the same time in the afternoon as a Government statement takes place on the Floor of the House. On those occasions, it seems to me that having a low quorum may avoid embarrassment. However, if we are to have a low quorum, the other side is that there is a responsibility on Members who put their names forward to serve on a Select Committee that they intend to attend.
	There is a spat among Opposition Members to do with looking at the record to see whose people turned up most frequently. Sadly, the record is pretty appalling, because all it shows is whether someone was in a Select Committee for a few seconds, just to get the Clerk to recognise that they were there. We have all come across people who nip in, get their mark and disappear. We should spell out to Members who put their names forward to go on a Select Committee that they are committing themselves to doing a piece of work and that they are not just going to get their mark and disappear.

Eric Forth: It occurs to me that one of the problems—I recognise that there are two sides to this matter—is that once a colleague is made a member of a Select Committee, he or she is effectively irremovable, and colleagues may trade on that. It might be worth our considering the possibility of attaching the privilege of membership to the responsibility to turn up; that might concentrate some minds effectively.

Andrew Bennett: There are arguments along that line. The problem is actually measuring how people turn up.
	The second point is that there are people who turn up fairly regularly but then dodge in and out of the Committee, spending more time on the telephone in the Corridor. We should spell it out to Members that if a Committee sits for two hours, they should be there and participating for those two hours.
	That brings me to the question of the size of a Select Committee. I can understand the argument that the more members a Committee has, the more useful things there are for Members of Parliament to do. However, the House also needs to think about the way in which a Select Committee works. My experience is that, in a Committee of 11 members, having eight or so present is about right, from the point of view of chairing the Committee and feeling that everyone is participating.
	When there is a larger Committee—I chaired a previous Environment Committee and a Transport Committee that had 17 members—there can be a lot of people there. If 15 or 16 turn up, there can be very little opportunity to participate and it becomes difficult for the Committee to be spontaneous. One cannot let people just jump in with a question when they want to push the questioning in a particular direction. One has to plan the questions formally, and allocate time or take other measures. We should not rush to make the Committees larger, if we want them to be effective and people to attend most of the time. It is not necessarily a good idea to make the Committees larger if we want them to work more effectively.
	The motion proposes the creation of two large Committees, one for environment, food and rural affairs and the other for transport, local government and the regions. If we are to have two such big Committees, a strong case may be made for having joint Chairs of those Committees. In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee was jointly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and me.
	Some unease was felt about whether the joint chairing would work. People asked, for example, from whom the Clerks would take instruction. However, I believe that we managed to make it work, and I plead with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider having joint Chairs for those two large Committees. In that way, we would have more participation in the management of the Committees than would be possible if they had only one Chair.
	The strength of Select Committees' reports is that they are based on the evidence heard and on the reaction of Members who heard it. One of the difficulties for a Sub-Committee is that it hears the evidence but does not have ownership of the report. It reports to the main Committee, which then reports to the House. Members on the main Committee who were not on the Sub-Committee may wish to go back through the evidence and alter the report, without having heard the evidence. It could be argued that the Sub-Committee should be able to report to the House, instead of to the main Committee, and that point should be considered.
	If the Select Committees are to work effectively, they must be properly staffed. It is important that when they are set up a little more time is spent on ensuring that they have the right resources. I do not ask for large resources, but there is a shortage of Clerks to cover the Select Committees proposed in the motion. The issue of specialist assistance and secretarial back-up is yet another question.
	We must also make much better use of new technology. It is welcome that Select Committee reports now appear on the web, but it is important to examine how we can get the evidence on to the web quickly, so that the Select Committee process can become more of a dialogue. People could read what had been said in evidence to the Select Committee and then send in supplementary evidence.
	I welcome the fact that the Government are getting on with making the changes. I look forward to seeing the names down on the Order Paper late next week, and I hope that the Select Committees will be up and running, and effectively scrutinising the Government, when we come back in October.

William Cash: I welcome the appointment of the Leader of the House. Over the years I have been in the House, I have developed not only an affection for him, which he may not have understood, but considerable respect for his ability and skill in the conduct of the various positions that he has held, even though I have recently had reason to disagree with him on matters that I need not mention tonight. Having said that, the issue before us is enormously important and I am glad to hear that the Leader of the House intends to review the situation in the autumn.
	It is a complex task to get the balance right between the conduct of business on the Floor of the House and the important matter of the hearing of evidence.
	On the Floor of the House we deal with things in a fairly broad fashion. However, the absolute requirement of a Select Committee is that it operate on the basis of evidence and analysis. There is therefore one essential requirement for any great reformer of the House—and there is no doubt that we need one. The "Parliament First" early-day motion is supported by some very distinguished Members in all parts of the House, because it is clear that among the fundamental issues that faced us at the general election were apathy, Parliament's failure to connect with people, and the need to restore both faith in politics and an understanding that what we say and do in the House is at the heart of what the voters want.
	When we are dealing with matters of great importance, whatever the subject matter investigated by any Select Committee may be, it is essential not only that the evidence be properly evaluated but that the Government take it seriously and do not simply, as a knee-jerk reaction, give a short response that effectively ditches the Select Committee's proposals. The Government should give Select Committee recommendations the kind of weight that will enable the members of Select Committees—and the public as a whole, which is what this is all about—to have confidence in the Committees and in the parliamentary process.
	We have much to learn from those such as Bernard Crick and others who have studied those questions. I have no doubt that, given the seriousness with which the right hon. Gentleman is taking his new role, he could turn out to be a great reforming Leader of the House.
	I can skip over several points quite quickly, because I gave evidence to the Norton committee, and the simplest way of dealing with those subjects, rather than going into them all now, is to send the right hon. Gentleman the evidence that I submitted to that committee, and also to put it in the Library.
	I also spoke on the constitutional issues in the debate on the Queen's Speech. The first part of my speech dealt with the reform of Parliament, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read that, because it contains a lot of the points that I want to make.
	There are still a number of issues that I would like to draw attention to now. First, in the interests of freedom of information, we need to think about the difficult subject of the advice given by civil servants to Ministers, and the extent to which Select Committees can have the opportunity to look at what was going on behind the scenes. There has to be a degree of sensitivity, there are parameters, and it is not an easy area—I do understand that—but there is a serious case, which should be carefully considered.
	There is also a case for suggesting that the House should have a free vote on Select Committee reports. That brings me back to a bigger question, to which I am returning, I believe, for the fourth time in a year—the question of amending Standing Orders to reduce the power of the Whips. I do not say that because I do not like the whipping system; after all, I have lived with it for some time. I am happy with the idea, in so far as it is connected with the need for parties to be able to deliver their policies.
	However, we are Members of Parliament, and there is an important feature that distinguishes the United Kingdom Parliament from many others that operate list systems, whereby recalcitrant Members—I shall not mention them by name—can simply be struck off the list by the party leaders. That is not in the interests of democracy, because Members of Parliament who have stood out have often eventually managed to convince not only their own party, but the parliamentary process and the electorate as a whole of the wisdom of their views.
	There is also the question of the chairmanship of scrutiny Committees. In a sense all Select Committees are scrutiny Committees, but we know what that phrase really means, and there are, I think, only three such Committees in the House—the Public Accounts Committee, the Modernisation Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee. There is a powerful case for the chairmanship of those committees to be in the hands of the Opposition.

Paul Tyler: Two other Committees fall into that category. The Select Committee on Environmental Audit is very much on a par with the Public Accounts Committee, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which Members of both Houses of Parliament serve, is also very germane to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

William Cash: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman because I was looking for guidance. I think that the principle is right. To put it bluntly, it does not look good for the membership of Committees to be based on party proportionality of the House so that the majority and the chairmanship are automatically with the Government. The status quo does not provide sufficient balance in the interests of democracy and accountability or in the information that comes out of the deliberations of the Committee for the benefit of the electorate—which is what this is all about.

Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a contradiction in what he says? He wants to reduce the power of the Whips. Surely if we do that we should be conferring power on each individual. Any individual in the House should be entitled to chair one of these Committees, not necessarily an Opposition Member.

William Cash: I am prepared to concede that. I would have agreed with Martin Bell chairing a Committee, for example, had he been provided with the opportunity to do so. I do not think that there is any inconsistency in my argument. By Opposition, I mean non-government. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a serious point. It is essential that the Government be seen to have the confidence to deal with effective, serious and reasoned opposition.
	The media are often the interviewers of the nation. I think that that is entirely wrong. I have great respect for people such as John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman, but they are not elected and do not have the exclusive right to be the nation's arbiters. They do their job well—I have been at the receiving end of quite a lot of their interviews. However, it is not their prerogative, on behalf of the nation—through the taxpayers' licence fee—to be the only people determining exchanges between Members of Parliament and the Government. It is an enormously important subject which needs to be considered.
	Over the past few months, I have corresponded and had several meetings with Greg Dyke, Tony Hall—before he went to the Royal Opera House—Mark Damazer and their teams on the manner in which such interviews are conducted and the research on the basis of which questions are asked. It gets very political; I do not want to go into it now because it is a separate subject in itself. I think that those people do a great job—I am entirely in favour of the media having the best possible opportunity to take part in national debate—but those in the House of Commons and the House of Lords ought to raise their game to ensure that they perform a function that can be seen to be completely impartial. It cannot be impartial if the Executive effectively controls the Select Committee system.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he accept that if the Government gave more serious consideration to the reports of the Liaison Committee in the previous Parliament—not least "Shifting the Balance", which is well known to the Leader of the House—the very concerns expressed by my hon. Friend would be dealt with at a stroke? Will he, at an early date, urge the Leader of the House to allow a full day's debate on "Shifting the Balance" and to ensure that the Government are bound by the decisions of the House at the end of that debate?

William Cash: I have great sympathy with that view. Indeed, I pointed out that a free vote on such matters was essential. The Government for the second time have achieved a substantial majority and they should have confidence in the system of democracy and accountability in this House. This is a test of the good faith of the Government and the Leader of the House. I trust in the right hon. Gentleman's perspicacity in these matters and I believe that he will take the matter seriously. He has every reason to do so because if he were to go down as a great reforming Leader of the House, it would be a tremendous tribute to the success that he has achieved over many years. I say that despite some of my differences with him on a number of points.
	More generally, would it not also be a good idea to increase through education in schools the amount of information about the manner in which these systems of government operate? It is an important responsibility to afford to young people as they grow up and to students at universities special opportunities to study the workings of Parliament in relation to what is going on elsewhere in the world and in the European Union.
	As a member of 15 years' standing who serves on the European Scrutiny Committee I believe that there is something seriously wrong with the way in which we scrutinise the legislation, given that under the European Communities Act 1972 there is much of it that we cannot avoid. Let us not camouflage the issue: whether we like it or not, majority voting is implicit in the workings of the EU. It follows, therefore, that decisions are taken which affect this House. Bills which cannot be amended without infringing the fundamental rules laid down by the acquis communautaire are continually passing through the House. Once the Council of Ministers takes a decision by majority voting and even before it is implemented through our enactment, it is binding on us by virtue of the rules established under section 2 of the European Communities Act.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: A lot of this is built on stilts of very thin paper. If the House did its job properly and Members of Parliament turned up to all European Committees and could not only question Ministers openly but table amendments, as they have the right to do in Standing Committees, there would be a different attitude towards much of the rubbish that flows from Brussels.

William Cash: It will be no surprise to the hon. Lady to hear that she has given me an opportunity to say that, only yesterday, for that very good reason, I tabled 240 amendments to the Bill implementing the Nice treaty.

Nicholas Winterton: That is only a starting point.

William Cash: Indeed it is. Of course debate has been truncated by the programme motion. That in itself raises a question which comes straight to the responsibility of the Leader of the House and the integrity of his arguments. Nice is an important treaty, but I certainly will not go into it now because we will have some opportunity to look into it during a four-day debate that is truncated by a programme motion. It is essential that hon. Members in all quarters of the House table amendments. I am sorry to say, despite all I have said, that the Leader of the House was the progenitor of the programme motion. It was a terrible shame and he has not heard the end of it yet.
	That does not alter the fact that we could be in serious trouble with the grouping of the amendments. The Chairman of Ways and Means will decide on Tuesday whether the matters raised are properly discussed—common foreign security policy, the question of human rights, the movement of the centre of gravity as a result of the enhanced co-operation procedures and so on. I must not and will not go into those matters now, but it is absolutely necessary for people outside the House to understand them, and they will not be able to do so unless there is debate. That is why I tabled 240 amendments on the Maastricht Bill. Whether people liked it or not—whether the former Prime Minister, John Major, liked it or not—as a result of the determination and political will of several Members, we put on the record what was going on in that Bill. That would not have happened otherwise. We can look back to those days with some pride.
	Will the Leader of the House be good enough to consider holding a serious meeting with some of us—I look especially to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who is the main mover and shaker of the "Parliament First" group motion—so that we can have a good and proper discussion about the operating principles?
	There is much to be said for referring draft Bills to Select Committees for consideration, so that we can winkle out some of the absurdities that will need to be changed. There were certainly plenty of those during the previous Parliament and no doubt there will be many under this Government. We must sort that out.
	If the European Scrutiny Committee, having regard to the ambit of the legislation on which it is involved, puts on a reserve stating that a matter should be debated on the Floor of the House and that a decision should not be taken in the Council of Ministers until this place has come to a resolution, for heaven's sake let us make certain that that principle is adhered to. Over and over again, the decision of the European Scrutiny Committee is frustrated when it insists on debate on the Floor of the House on highly sensitive matters on which the Government do not want to hear opinions with which they do not agree.
	The House is where decisions have to be taken. This is about democracy and accountability. I am extremely glad that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) holds his current position. I look forward to seeing him develop and evolve the ideas being expressed today in a way that is truly in the interests of democracy and of the electorate of this country.

Mark Fisher: What a remarkable and interesting debate. So far, every contribution has been thoughtful and based on experience. Speeches have been cross-party and concise. It is hard to imagine a debate of which that could be said of every contribution. Furthermore, to his great credit, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has remained in his place throughout the debate—as has his junior Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. The debate has been a model—a rare occasion. If it is to be typical of debates in this Parliament, perhaps we really are entering a new era under my right hon. Friend's leadership of the House.
	I join everyone else who has spoken in congratulating the Leader of the House on the speed with which he has moved in setting up the Select Committees. We may have already forgotten that this Parliament is only two weeks old. My right hon. Friend was pressed on day one of the Parliament to set up the Select Committees. He promised that he would do so and he is well on the way to delivering that promise. That is enormously to his credit.
	I support thoroughly the detail of the motion— the reconfiguration of the Committees; the wider arrangements; and the changes to quorums. They are right, realistic and reasonable.
	The Leader of the House explained why changes to quorums were necessary. Most colleagues on both sides of the House will sympathise and agree with his argument about the attendance figures. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) made an extremely shrewd and experienced speech about the reality of attendance rather than the actual existence of an attendance record. I hope that his subtle remarks were heard by all those Members on both sides of the House who next week will be rushing to put their names forward for membership of Select Committees but who, during the next few months, will not rush to attend the Committees in quite the same way.
	I suggest that if the new Select Committees had and were seen to have the importance and effectiveness of scrutiny that they ought to have—the status in the eyes of the House, the media and the public—there would be no problem with attendance. The problem is that they do not have the powers and thus the status, so they are not always given priority in people's diaries.

Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one possibility is that at the point at which right hon. and hon. Members volunteer for membership of a Select Committee, they should make available an undated letter of resignation to be held by the Chairman and used if their attendance record is less than satisfactory?

Mark Fisher: I have heard of smoking guns, but the right hon. Gentleman suggests that an about to be smoking gun should be left in someone's hand. That is an interesting suggestion, as was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who said that continuing Select Committee membership should be linked to attendance in some way. That is true of local authority committee membership, and the principle could be adapted to membership of Select Committees. However, it is not a matter of press-ganging Members to join.
	All of us would want to be members of Select Committee, and to be assiduous as members, if we really felt that all the Select Committees at all times not only did the work that they should do, but were listened to by the Government and the world outside. Their status and the effectiveness of their scrutiny will determine the enthusiasm of those who serve on them.

John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a causal link exists between the low esteem in which Select Committees are held and the influence of the respective Whips Offices in determining their composition?

Mark Fisher: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but there is no simple causal link, nor does any such link cover all Select Committees. Undoubtedly, there was no problem with the commitment and work rate of many Select Committees in the previous Parliament and earlier ones—or, indeed, with their status in the outside world. Examples are the admirable Public Accounts Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the Transport Sub-Committee under the valiant leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It is not a simple thing and the causes are subtle and various, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, but there is possibly some link, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	That brings me to the wider agenda that is only implicit—or is perhaps the dog that is not barking—in the motions tabled by the Leader of the House: the wider agenda of the Liaison Committee report of the previous Parliament and the Hansard Society report, with their rather specific recommendations on powers, selection of membership, resources, status and whether the Chairman should be paid. I very much welcome the positive remarks made today by the Leader of the House, who said that we would debate such matters again later, but not too much later, in this Parliament.
	The principle behind those reports, which should inform all our thinking on the issue, is that Select Committees are about the power of scrutiny. When the scrutiny powers of our Select Committees are compared with those, for example, of the Senate Committees in the United States, we can see how very gently toothless our Committees are. There is no direct comparison because we have very different democratic systems, but the principle is the same: those elected on behalf of the electorate have a duty to scrutinise, with real rigour and thoroughness, the actions of the Government. That is good for politics in any country and very good for the quality of government. It is quite sobering to compare how Senate Committees work with the detail and effectiveness of scrutiny of our own Committees.
	My other point on the wider agenda in our discussion of Select Committees is the only qualification to my praise for the Leader of the House in setting them up. The price that Parliament has paid for setting the Committees up quickly is that we have not been able to change the basis on which they are made. While I congratulate the Leader of the House, I am sure that he understands that many hon. Members believe that these are parliamentary Committees—reference has been made to the early day motion relating to Parliament First—not governmental Committees. That being so, Parliament, not the Government, should decide their powers, status, responsibilities and membership.
	It is quite wrong—as it would be in any other organisation—for the Government to appoint or have any influence over their own scrutineers. That does not make sense. The public would not understand it if they were to focus on that point, and we must return to this issue. The Government would be the greatest beneficiary—in the widest sense of the word—of those changes if they were to work with Parliament to return to the Committees the idea that they are parliamentary Committees, and that the responsibility to run, appoint and arrange their affairs should rest with Parliament, not with the Government.
	The Leader of the House sensibly and wisely volunteered the quotation by Professor Crick to the effect that we had a common interest. I would go further and say that the Government have, in the long term, the greater interest. Let us imagine the way in which the press and the public would respond if the Government gave away some of their powers for the first time in 100 years. The credibility that would be heaped on the Government would be enormous, and it would not be at the cost of any effective power or any ability to get their programme through. They would still be able to do that only too easily. However, their esteem would rise in the eyes of the House, of the public and of the world generally.
	My right hon. Friend is right: there is a lot to go on, here. I congratulate him on his encouraging use of that quotation from Professor Crick, and I believe that he recognises what we are saying about the importance of these matters and the credit that would accrue to the Government. This debate, and the way in which the Leader of the House is pushing forward these matters, are enormously encouraging for Parliament.

Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is the leading light in the Parliament First campaign, which supplemented the activities of the Liaison Committee in the last 12 months of the previous Parliament. He has spoken with great eloquence and he knows that he has wide support in the House. All Members of the House support the campaign that he is leading, and he also knows that he has my 100 per cent. support for what he is doing.
	I am grateful for the positive way in which the Leader of the House and his team have responded to the approaches made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—who cannot be here today—and me. The Leader of the House was very positive when we all met. He suggested that there might be problems in interpreting and implementing the Liaison Committee's report, "Shifting the Balance", before the parliamentary recess. However, on balance, we believe that setting up the Select Committees at a very early date was the priority and I am grateful to him for saying today that he will look again at all the recommendations and observations made by the Liaison Committee in the three excellent reports that it produced towards the end of the previous Parliament.
	I also endorse the views of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who has made a good contribution to Select Committees over many years, jointly chairing—as it were—the large Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich in the previous Parliament. I particularly endorse the reference that he made to quorums. I believe that flexibility on that matter is right, and that reducing the quorum is right. The Procedure Committee—which I chaired—had difficulty meeting its quorum on some occasions during the previous Parliament when we had important people coming before us to give evidence, not least because the Committee of Selection, or perhaps the Government Deputy Chief Whip, had not appointed the full complement of members to that Committee.
	I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to what I considered to be an abuse. A Government Member who served on that Committee did not attend once in the final three years of the Parliament. He had told the Government Chief Whip that he wanted to be removed from the Committee, but he was prevailed on to remain a member, although he was told that he need not attend. That is, I believe, a reliable explanation of what happened. I do not intend to name the Member involved, as I blame not him, but the system for allowing that to happen.
	I warmly support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish in a concise and eloquent speech. What matters is not the number of Members selected to serve on a particular Committee, but their dedication and commitment to serving and to doing the job that the Committee is there to do.
	The majority of the Government Members on the Procedure Committee were extremely assiduous and regular in their attendance, which made it much easier for us to do our job. I commend the majority of members for their work and dedication in producing our reports in the previous Parliament. The Leader of the House has been exemplary in tabling amendments to the Standing Orders and trying to set up the Select Committees as quickly as possible.
	Nine years ago, I had an experience that exemplifies the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about the abuse of the Select Committee system by the Executive of the day. We must take control of Select Committees away from the Executive of the day and put it back in the hands of the House of Commons as a whole.
	I used to chair the Health Committee. I pay tribute to that Committee and to a particular member of it who is no longer with us, the former hon. Member for Preston, Mrs. Audrey Wise. I am considered right of centre in the political spectrum and she was considered very much to the left of centre, but I tell you this, Mr. Deputy Speaker: we worked together on that Committee as one. It was a magnificent Committee. Indeed, it achieved so much influence that it embarrassed the Government of the day to such an extent that they indulged in a fraudulent practice with the connivance of the then Chairman of the Committee of Selection. They created a rule that worked against me to try to break the Committee's influence and impact, even though it comprised not just me, but all those who were members of it, and they succeeded. That was a tragic abuse of the House that shows how an Executive can manipulate the Select Committee system.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nicholas Winterton: I hesitate, but will do so if my hon. Friend is brief.

William Cash: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments and would add that, unless the Whip system is curtailed through Standing Orders, such changes will be made to no avail.

Nicholas Winterton: I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's observation, and I know that the Leader of the House is well aware of the important Liaison Committee report on the matter. My hon. Friend is right that the power of the Whips, the usual channels and the establishment in trying to influence, if not dictate, who serves on Select Committees must be ended. That power must be put back in the hands of Back-Bench Members.
	The Leader of the House has done a magnificent job and I am delighted to say that from the Conservative Benches. I went to see him with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, because at the end of the last Parliamentwe had been mandated by the Liaison Committee to act as a co-ordinating group to get the Select Committees set up and he has honoured in every way the commitments that he gave us. I hope and believe that he is sincere because I have great regard for the right hon. Gentleman. Whichever Department he has been in, he has done a magnificent job, both in opposition and in government. If, along with the House and those Members who value the role of Select Committees, he will look at the recommendations of the Liaison Committee, I believe that he will strengthen Government, because a House of Commons that can properly hold to account the Government and the Executive of the day will produce a better Government and better legislation.

Desmond Swayne: I do not intend to detain the House long, although it would not be to the inconvenience of a great many Members were I to choose to do so. I hate to introduce a note of dissent to the debate, but I am afraid that my experience of serving on some three Select Committees during the last Parliament does not fill me with quite the same awe of those Committees as has been expressed today. A real measure of the importance that we actually attach to those Committees can be made from noting the attendance at this debate.
	I principally wish to discuss quorums and the measure that we have before us which, for the greater convenience of Select Committee members, proposes reducing those quorums. It certainly would have been for my greater convenience. I can recall on one occasion during the last Parliament rushing from one Select Committee meeting in the Upper Committee Corridor, down the stairs to the floor below to another Select Committee meeting. Of course that was down to the Committee of Selection, which appointed me to two Select Committees that met at the same time on the same day. Nevertheless, I had to rush from one Select Committee to the other in order to maintain the quorum on the floor below and to prevent the embarrassment that would otherwise attend that Committee, as witnesses had come from far afield in order to be interrogated. It certainly would have been to our convenience if the quorum had been lower.
	The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) has explained one of the problems that attaches to maintaining a quorum. Of course it might be difficult if a Committee meeting is held when a statement is being given to the House. However, it strikes me that there is a measure of contributory negligence in that, by arranging for a Select Committee to meet when there is likely to be a statement to the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) gave us two examples of how it is difficult to maintain a quorum, given the existing system for appointing members to Select Committees and, without giving names, he cast aspersions on the Members concerned. However, the answer must be to reform the system by which we make appointments to Select Committees, not simply to accommodate that corrupt system by reducing the quorum. It strikes me as absolutely monstrous to table a motion to reduce the quorums when the glaring problem is the very way in which we appoint Members to Select Committees. I believe that Select Committees would indeed achieve the importance that we allegedly attach to them if their members had to seek the approval of the whole House before their appointment. If they had to canvass support among their fellow hon. Members rather than have the privilege conferred on them by the Committee of Selection, greater importance would attach to their appointment and, of course, they would be under much greater pressure actually to attend the meetings.

William Cash: rose—

Nicholas Winterton: rose—

John Bercow: rose—

Desmond Swayne: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

William Cash: I have great sympathy with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks, but as was shown by the number of Members who leapt to their feet, there is a problem with his argument. He is right if the decision taken by the whole House were on a genuinely free vote—which takes me back to the necessity of changing Standing Orders so that the Whips cannot interfere in those votes. However, it would not produce the right result.

Desmond Swayne: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend that it would not produce the right result. I am constantly assured that the importance of Select Committee work is that it is non-partisan, but I am not convinced of the merits of non-partisanship. I think that confrontation does a great deal to increase attendance at Committees. If we accept the often used argument that Select Committee work should be entirely non-partisan, I do not agree that a vote by the whole House would produce the wrong result.

Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that Select Committee reports should be based on the evidence given, whether it is oral or written? That is the importance of Select Committees. Decisions and recommendations should not be made according to people's individual partisan views or prejudices.

Desmond Swayne: Of course. However, a clever member of a Select Committee can elicit the evidence that he wants by influencing the choice of witnesses to be called and by skilful questioning of those witnesses. I certainly believe that members can have great influence. It is my experience—from one Select Committee in particular—that a member can have a great deal of influence on the report that is produced.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend's speech is veritably warming the cockles of my heart. However, leaving aside the logistical inconvenience of having speedily to transport himself from one Committee to another, does he agree that Select Committees often suffer from a triple problem? First, there is a tendency in some of them towards a rather formulaic style of questioning, which does not necessarily illuminate the subject matter. Secondly, the Whips are far too influential in determining the composition of those Committees. Thirdly, there is an alarming tendency, which has been exacerbated under this Government, for Ministers, in advance of the publication of the reports of the Committees, to brief against them with all the advantages of the government machine at their disposal. That does nothing to encourage confidence in the system.

Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend is quite right, although I assure him that it was not my intention to have any effect on the cockles of his heart, whatever they may be.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Or wherever.

Desmond Swayne: Indeed, or wherever they may be.
	My hon. Friend draws attention to an important issue. It has been my experience in one or two Select Committees that members are often busy and have not had time to do all the reading, so when they arrive at the Committee they are presented with a list of questions drawn up by the Clerks. It is, in effect, the Clerks who do the interrogation, even though their questions are put into the mouths of the Committee members. I suspect that the Clerks have a greater role than the public may imagine in writing the reports of the Select Committees.
	A great deal of nonsense is talked about Select Committees. We attach huge importance to them and the great work that they do. Undoubtedly, some Select Committees do their jobs effectively, but not all of them are in the same league.

Eric Forth: One of the more intriguing aspects of the debate is that it gives rise to a phenomenon with which some of us are fairly familiar. We all do a balletic dance around the subject at issue. We have an interest in doing that, because most, if not all, of those forgathered here have a deep emotional attachment to the concept of Select Committees and the way in which they work. There are distinguished Select Committee Chairman present, as well as a number of colleagues who have spent a great deal of their time and commitment on the work of Select Committees. That, however, should not blind us to a fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) just alluded. I suspect that I agree with him more than some earlier speakers.
	Let us look back to the genesis of Select Committees. I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mentioned this. We fooled ourselves for the best part of 20 years. As I recall, someone somewhere looked fondly across the Atlantic and said "Our American friends have the most wonderful system of legislative scrutiny and accountability; can we have some of that?" With all good will, that system was imported across the Atlantic.
	I am very much in favour of things being imported across the Atlantic. I imported Mrs. Forth from across the Atlantic. What more can I say? Mrs. Forth probably works better than the Select Committees. But on this occasion the problem was glaringly obvious from the start. We chose to ignore the fundamental difference between a legislature that has Congress on the one hand only, and a legislature—this legislature—in which the Executive is, in fact, part of the legislature and has control over it.
	Most of the difficulties that have been described today flow from that fundamental fact. We are perpetually caught by the same problem: we want a system of Select Committees that allows us to scrutinise the Executive effectively, but at the same time we must live with the fact that in our system of parliamentary government the Executive control the House. I fear that, until we find a way of breaking out of that system, we shall be stuck with the problem for a long time.
	The Liaison Committee report has rightly been mentioned frequently today. I admit that it will be difficult to solve the problem in one leap, but the report constitutes a considered, moderate and modulated effort to move us in the right direction. Nevertheless, I can see why the Government, and even a parliamentarian of the stature of the Leader of the House, will always be reluctant to take that step: Governments find the existing arrangement all too convenient. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) illustrated one of the more extreme examples, but there are almost certainly many others.
	So here we are, struggling with this motion. The Leader of the House—I join the many others who have given him credit—has responded rapidly to requests made to him, and to his colleagues, to accelerate the process of appointment of Select Committees, and we must all welcome that; but there is a catch. He knows and we know and we know he knows, and so on.
	If we had tried to hold up the establishment of Select Committees—which, I submit, would have been within our grasp—we would have been hoist by our own petard. Had we told the Government and the Leader of the House that we were profoundly dissatisfied with the means by which Select Committees are currently established, we would have delayed the establishment of Select Committees, and found ourselves with exactly the same problem as before.
	Thanks to the Leader of the House, we shall have our Select Committees, but they will be established under the very procedure with which we are nearly all profoundly dissatisfied. Is that progress, or is it not? I hesitate to make the judgment, but the dilemma in which we find ourselves can be seen very readily.
	The motions give us an opportunity to be grateful for the limited progress that we are making, but also to point out that the Leader of the House has neither fooled us—although I am sure that that was not his intention—nor seduced us into thinking that all is well, and that the accelerated appointment of Select Committees legitimises the process whereby they are already being established. It should be understood that any progress we are making is very limited, and that mutual congratulation is not in order.

John Bercow: If the Leader of the House was keen to set up the Select Committees as early as possible in the current Parliament—principally, if not exclusively, to avoid the charge that he has created, or allowed to continue, a vacuum—but was perfectly open to the idea of a change in their composition, would it not be helpful if he said just that before the end of the debate? Would it not be helpful if he said "Yes, I want us to get on with our work, but I am entirely open to the idea of competitive elections to Select Committees, in which the Whips Office will have no involvement whatever"?

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is legendary for his optimism and generosity of spirit. I suspect that I may be almost as legendary for my lack of those characteristics. I cannot share his view. I hope to give the Leader of the House an opportunity to sum up the debate, which I am sure he will do with his usual skill, but not before I have said a few more words about one or two other matters.
	Regrettably, I cannot agree with the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The other fact of parliamentary life that we all understand all too well is that our Front Benchers and our business managers all share a joint and mutual understanding of the power of patronage, which is so important to them and which is expressed, among many other means, in the ability to appoint members of Select Committees. I believe that the parliamentary Labour party works in a different way. It has told us that it elects its members of Select Committees, so in a funny way the Labour party is perhaps less guilty of that offence than others.
	In my party, the system seems to work in the traditional way. Members are asked whether they would like to participate in a Select Committee, but our usual channels arrogate and keep firmly to themselves—certainly, they have done so hitherto—the power to give colleagues a place on an appropriate Select Committee. It is worse than that.
	The other truth that usually dares not speak its name—I am about to reveal it since we are in revelatory mood, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West has illustrated—is that there is then a disgraceful little carve-up of Select Committee chairmanships by the Front Benchers—talking of which, I give way to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).

Paul Tyler: I, too, have been in revelatory mood as an ex-member of the usual channels. The other night, I pointed out to the House that not all Select Committee memberships must be put on the Order Paper by an Officer of the Crown; some Select Committees can be elected by the House. Indeed, it is possible for hon. Members to make representations to the Committee of Selection that the recommendations from the usual channels are not appropriate, so, even within the existing rules, there are some ways in which we might make some progress along the lines indicated by the ever optimistic hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman is correct—at least technically he is correct—and these are motions to which amendments can be made, but the reality lurking behind all that is that, in this Parliament, as in the previous one, the Government have been given a huge majority by the electorate. In the end, the Government will have their way. Indeed, the Front Benchers will have their way because my right hon. and hon. Friends are in the conspiracy right up to their necks, along with the Government—talking of which, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).

Angela Browning: Before my right hon. Friend ventures any further down that route, I ask him to refer to the report in Hansard of the debate on a motion for the Adjournment just before the House rose for the election. He will find that, on behalf of the Conservative Front-Bench team, I supported the Liaison Committee's view on changing the system of selection and election for Select Committees. He must have missed that bit.

Eric Forth: No, I did not miss that bit at all. I am talking about something quite different, before my hon. Friend gets too upset. I am talking about the fact that we do not elect members of Select Committees, as the Labour party does. I am also talking about the fact that, as I understand it, our so-called usual channels, or whatever they call themselves these days, still do a deal with Government Whips and Front Benchers on who will get what chairmanships. I suspect that our Front Benchers allocate the chairmanships to certain privileged colleagues. That is all I am saying.
	There is nothing particularly secretive about it, but I say that to illustrate the point and lest we kid ourselves that the Select Committee procedure is a creature of the entire House. It is nothing of the kind. As far as I know, it is, has been and remains a creature of the Front Benchers. Let there be no illusions about that.

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend suggested that I was unduly optimistic, but I certainly do not want to be mistaken for an imitator of Dr. Pangloss. He should not take the Labour party's evident approach to these matters entirely at face value. Has it occurred to his fertile mind that the fact that there is an election process in the Government party on the composition of Select Committees does not mean that there is not a sinister, invisible hand at work in the form of covert intervention, back-slapping, threats and so on from the Patronage Secretary?

Eric Forth: That may be, but provided that the ballot is secret, most of my hon. Friend's dark suspicions are addressed. As in the up-coming election for the leadership of our party, and for reasons that the House well understands, the secret ballot may well bring about many surprises that will shock some of the candidates. However, I want to move on because in a few more minutes I will sit down to allow brief winding-up speeches.
	I want to say a few words about the matter of the quorum, which is one of the other distressing aspects of the debate. It is rather sad that we must wash such linen very publicly, but inevitable, I am afraid. How can Select Committees, grand and important though they are, vital though their work is to our democratic processes, occasionally find it so difficult to muster a quorum? That must be to our collective shame. We must try much harder to find an answer to that problem. It appears that colleagues are all too ready to submit their names to serve on Select Committees, but that if they find it just a tad inconvenient to attend and do their work, they are not present when it matters. We must turn our attention much more urgently to that tendency.
	Another argument that has arisen in the debate concerns the size of Committees. In this case, size really does matter. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) gave an acute analysis of the issue, and I am with him on it. I suspect that, if Select Committees are to be as effective as we all hope, the smaller they are the better—and for a number of reasons. With his enormous experience, the hon. Gentleman summed up those reasons much better than I could. Therefore, I resist, certainly for the time being, the blandishments of the Liberal Democrats on the matter. If we increase the size of Committees, we may reduce their effectiveness even further.
	Worse, there is a budgetary aspect to the argument. I say to the Leader of the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, as members of the House of Commons Commission, that in increasing the size of Select Committees, we shall increase the size of the travelling caravanserai that they so often become. That will happen unless we cap Select Committees' total travel budget and let them argue among themselves about its allocation. In that case the bigger ones would travel less because there are more people on them. That solution appeals to me, but I should like the reassurance of the Leader of the House that he agrees.
	I predict with some confidence that if we increase the size of Committees but do not cap the travel budget, the Liaison Committee would say, "We need more money for travel because there are more of us on Select Committees and we've no intention of curtailing our travel plans." These matters are never as obvious or straightforward as they seem. There are always wheels within wheels, which is a rather good metaphor for travelling Select Committees.
	I hope that some good can come from this debate and our deliberations on these matters, so that we can look with much greater honesty at Select Committees, the work that they do, the work that we expect them to do and their membership. Then, we would be able to make some positive and constructive suggestions to improve their workings. On that, I shall attempt to be an optimist.

Dominic Grieve: What started as a debate on a narrow issue has snowballed to cover a large number of topics, for the simple reason that there are many topics to be covered.
	I entirely endorse the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), that we should not live in a Panglossian world, imagining that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. There are many aspects of Select Committees that are formulaic and could do with being reformed, but that will start only when the ball gets rolling. If this is going to start that ball rolling, it is a tremendous event, but if not, we are missing a tremendous opportunity. I hope that the Government will grasp the opportunity that they have been given.

Stephen Twigg: We have had an excellent short debate on a set of proposals that has proved largely uncontroversial, which may explain why the debate has ranged rather wide of them.
	I begin where the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) began: it is right to place this debate in the context of the need to reconnect people with politics and in particular to try to make Parliament more relevant to the lives of ordinary people, especially in the light of the low turnout at the general election. That is a sensible background for consideration of the proposals.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that the various proposals from the Liaison Committee, the Parliament First campaign, the Hansard Society and the Norton commission ranged far wider than what we are discussing today. I repeat his undertaking that we will return to those proposals, as we accept that this is a real debate that is happening both within the House and more widely.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) spoke about resourcing and staffing support—a legitimate issue, but not one that is properly a matter for Government: it is a matter for the House of Commons Commission. The Leader of the House sits on the Commission, and that is the right place for the matter to be considered. We will ensure that that happens.
	The hon. Member for Stone raised the broader question of education in schools about Parliament and its work. I very much associate myself with his remarks. The issue of citizenship in schools is a live one, and we should all seek to make this place more relevant to both primary and secondary schools.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of draft Bills being referred to Select Committees. The Government certainly favour greater pre-legislative scrutiny. The matter was considered at great length in the previous Parliament in the Modernisation and Procedure Committees. The Government have undertaken that draft Bills that relate to a single Department may be scrutinised by the appropriate Committee. That is clearly a first step, but there is scope for considerable further work if we are to have the broadest and deepest pre-legislative scrutiny that we can achieve.
	Several hon. Members spoke about quorums. It is important to emphasise that a quorum is a minimum, not a target. We do not aim to have only a small proportion of a Committee present. We simply want to ensure that its work can continue. The matter should clearly be kept under very close review.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish spoke about having joint Chairs. My understanding is that that is a matter for the Committees themselves. As he said, that was the practice followed by the then Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament. If the new departmental Committees want to continue that practice, it is up to them.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke to his two amendments. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out the Government's response to those amendments, and I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press them to a Division. We have seen that there are various points of view in the House about the appropriateness of increasing the size of Committees. Certainly, I am sympathetic to the point about ensuring representation for the Liberal Democrats—they form the third party in the House—and for other, smaller parties. However, we must also take into account the needs and interests of all hon. Members, including those who belong to the principal Opposition party, as that party will not benefit from the proposed change with regard to Select Committee representation.
	Labour Back Benchers must also be kept in mind, and my right hon. Friend undertook to ensure that the question of membership would be reviewed. I hope that that undertaking will enable the hon. Member for Hazel Grove not to press the matter to a vote.
	Amendment (b) deals with Sub-Committees. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the proposals before the House would enable Select Committees to make such decisions for themselves. Like my right hon. Friend, I expect that it would be proper for a Select Committee to include on a Sub-Committee any minor party member who wished to be on it. However, I think that that should not be imposed by a decision of the House today, and therefore hope once again that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will not press the matter to a vote.
	The debate has ranged beyond the specific proposals before the House. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) placed the matter in the broader context of the history of Parliament, and set out some of the factors that make the British Parliament distinctive among other legislatures in the world. All hon. Members will agree that the British constitution is evolving. There has been much change in recent years, starting with the introduction of Select Committees 20 years ago, and this Government introduced important changes in their first term.
	The remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in opening the debate reflected the Government's determination to address the matter of Select Committees, and the relationship between the legislature and the Executive, in a serious manner. There is a determination that hon. Members of all parties should be able to contribute to that debate.
	I welcome the tone and content of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who praised the proposals and said that they were sensible. He pointed out that they amounted only to the first building block, and suggested that good will exists among Opposition Members on this matter. As a result, the debate has been good tempered, and several positive contributions have been made, both about the proposals and, perhaps more important, about the need for a broader strengthening of Parliament's scrutiny role. That strengthening would require greater power for the Select Committees.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend is grateful for the many kind remarks about his appointment and about his record as a very effective parliamentarian. I should like to thank in particular the three hon. Members from the Select Committee on Liaison who are now present in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made supportive remarks in the debate, which reflects the real good will evident in most contributions to today's proceedings.
	I am sure that the House will return to these matters in the weeks and months ahead, but I think that there is cross-party consensus in favour of the proposals. If the House approves them, we will aim to get the Select Committees up and running before the summer recess, so that their very important role in scrutinising the Executive can begin. On that basis, I appeal for support from all hon. Members for these proposals.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:

A. Select Committee Meetings

S.O. No. 124 (Quorum of Select Committees):
	in line 1, at the beginning, insert—
	'(A) Except as otherwise provided, the quorum of a select committee shall be three or a quarter of the number of its members, whichever is the greater; and in calculating the quorum fractions shall be counted as one.
	(B) Where more than two select committees or sub-committees thereof meet concurrently for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, pursuant to Standing Order (Select Committees: power to work with other committees), the quorum of each shall be two.'.
	S.O. No. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting):
	in line 5, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 6.
	S.O. No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee):
	leave out paragraph (10).
	S.O. No. 142 (Domestic Committees):
	in line 9, leave out from 'Members' to end of the line.
	S.O. No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee):
	in line 19, leave out from 'Members' to end of the line.
	S.O. No. 145 (Liaison Committee):
	leave out paragraph (5).
	S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
	in line 10, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 11.
	S.O. No. 147 (Procedure Committee):
	leave out paragraph (3).
	S.O. No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts):
	in line 7, leave out from 'Members' to 'The' in line 8.
	S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
	in line 7, after 'concerned', insert 'and'.
	in line 8, leave out from 'committee' to 'shall'.
	in the table in paragraph (2), leave out the fourth column ('Quorum').
	leave out paragraph (5).
	S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
	in line 9, leave out from 'Members' to end of line 10.

B. Select Committees (Power to Work with other Committees)

That—
	(1) The following Standing Order (Select Committees: power to work with other committees) be made:
	'(1) Any select committee or sub-committee with power to send for persons, papers and records shall have power—
	(a) to communicate its evidence to any other select committee or sub-committee of either House of Parliament; provided that evidence from the National Audit Office shall first have been agreed between that Office and the government department or departments concerned;
	(b) to meet concurrently with any such committee or sub-committee for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence; and
	(c) to meet concurrently with any other select committee of this House for the purpose of considering a draft report.
	(2) Where two or more select committees have agreed reports to the House in identical terms, those reports may be published as a joint report; and
	(2) That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:'
	S.O. No. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting):
	in line 16, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 33, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
	S.O. No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee):
	leave out lines 116 to 126.
	S.O. No. 142 (Domestic Committees):
	in line 23, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 40, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
	S.O. No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee):
	leave out paragraphs (12) and (13).
	S.O. No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee):
	in line 28, leave out from 'communicate' to end of line 45, and insert 'its evidence to the House of Commons Commission'.
	S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
	leave out lines 21 to 26.
	S.O. No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts):
	leave out paragraphs (3) and (4).
	S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
	leave out lines 29 to 42.
	in line 47, leave out from 'proceedings' to 'and' in line 52.
	S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
	leave out lines 23 to 34.

C. Select Committees related to Government Departments

That Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments) be amended, by leaving out items 1, 4, 5 and 13 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following items at the appropriate places:
	'Education and Skills/Department for Education and Skills/11';
	'Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/17';
	'Transport, Local Government and the Regions/Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions/17'; and
	'Work and Pensions/Department for Work and Pensions/11'.

D. Select Committees (Power to appoint Sub-Committees)

That the following amendments to Standing Orders be made:
	S.O. No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration):
	in line 29, at end add the following words:
	'(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.
	(6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
	(7) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.
	S.O. No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments):
	leave out lines 9 to 14, and insert the following words:
	'(3) Each select committee appointed under this order shall have the power to appoint a sub-committee, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee shall have power to appoint two sub-committees.'.
	S.O. No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee):
	in line 34, at end, add the following words:
	'(5) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.
	(6) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
	(7) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.

European Standing Committees

Resolved,
	That the following amendments be made to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees):
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Agriculture, Fisheries and Food', and insert 'Environment, Food and Rural Affairs'.
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Environment, Transport and the Regions', and insert 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions'.
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Scottish, Welsh', and insert 'Scotland, Wales'.
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Social Security', and insert 'Work and Pensions'.
	In the Table, in the column 'Principal subject matter', leave out 'Education and Employment', and insert 'Education and Skills'.—[Angela Smith.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June].
	That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.— [Mr. Heppell].
	Question again proposed, 6.59 pm

Eric Forth: rose—
	It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Monday 9 July.— [Mr. Heppell.]

DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM COMMITTEE

Motion made,
	That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ian Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Hon. Members: Object.

FOOT AND MOUTH (TIVERTON AND HONITON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Angela Browning: My purpose tonight is to seek information from Ministers, and I am seeking specific answers to specific questions. I did not want to table a lot of written questions and, perhaps, wait a long time for the answers. I hope that if the Minister cannot answer my specific questions when he responds, he will at least undertake to send me written, substantive replies to the many questions from my constituents. Although the Government have said that we are now on the home straight as far as foot and mouth is concerned, that is certainly not the way in which my constituents in my rural seat see the situation.
	I should like to begin by referring to matters relating to the farming and agriculture industry. There is a great deal of confusion within the farming community about whether the Government have finally decided that, if the disease continues, the vaccination of animals has been ruled out. The subject keeps cropping up and I must admit—even as a former Agriculture Minister—that there is a duty on the Government immediately to establish a committee that will bring together all the relevant information, so that it can be considered over the coming weeks.
	The fear among my farming constituents is that there may be a large resurgence of outbreaks in the autumn, when the weather changes and the disease is more likely to spring up again. If there is any question of the Government recommending vaccination, the work, preparation and analysis of all the available data will have been carried out over the summer months. We may reach autumn without having had a proper analysis and the farming community may be suddenly faced with a proposal for vaccination at a time when, perhaps, there will not be the opportunity for that to be properly considered. I urge the Minister to put together a committee of expertise and to put the information in the public domain before the autumn.
	I have to express to the Minister my concerns and those of my constituents about the way in which the contiguous culls have been conducted. I agree in principle that where an outbreak occurs one should throw a cordon around it by culling out the adjacent farms in order to contain the disease. Other countries have done that and have managed to contain the disease.
	What is not acceptable is when the contiguous culls are dealt with not within the first 24 or 48 hours of an outbreak, but days and weeks later. I have done some special pleading on behalf of farms in my constituency that were threatened with having their entire livestock slaughtered up to 21 days after an outbreak. If cases continue and contiguous culling proves necessary, I hope that the Minister will ensure that it is carried out quickly: leaving it for a long time would defeat the object of the exercise.
	Since the election, there have been more outbreaks of foot and mouth in my constituency than before. Worryingly, the parish of Clayhanger, which previously had no identified outbreaks, has seen a crop of outbreaks in the past two to three weeks.
	The issue of footpaths was raised at business questions today, but no real answer was given and perhaps the Minister could look into the matter. Who exactly has the final say about the opening of footpaths? Is it the Government or the local authority? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that there is no risk in walkers and others using footpaths, but my constituents are very concerned about the situation, especially in areas where livestock are kept on land immediately adjacent to footpaths.
	Many of my constituents are still on farm, where they have been for several months, because they have been extremely cautious about their own movements on and off farm. Some of my constituents have effectively locked themselves away for several months and are concerned that others will come on to the land. Every time footpaths are opened, my office is inundated with telephone calls and I wish to know to whom I, as a Member of Parliament, should make representations. Is it to the local authority, or directly to the Minister's office? We are batted to and fro, with no definitive answer given.
	Farmers who might survive foot and mouth still face practical problems. We are already aware of the financial pressures that veterinary inspection is imposing on farmers who wish to avail themselves of the derestrictions on movement. I alert the Minister yet again to the fact that the financial position of many farmers in my constituency is dire, and I shall give specific examples later in my speech. Farmers are also concerned about artificial insemination services gaining access to farms, because they are trying to plan for the future. What is the Minister's advice to farmers who wish to plan in that way? Sheep farmers also face specific problems with shearers gaining access to sheep.
	All those issues are not only bound up with what has happened in the past few months, but they constrain farmers who are just about hanging on and who do not know whether they have a future or not. Therefore, I hope that the Department is addressing those practical problems and will be able to give specific advice to farmers.
	Another problem is the holding pit that was built, at short notice, on a property called Westlake farm in the parish of Oakford in my constituency. It is north of Tiverton, right up on the Exmoor border, and I have been to see the holding pit myself. I was shocked. It looked like a massive strip of runway for an airport. It is huge and it must have cost millions of pounds. It has not been used and I have corresponded with the Environment Agency about how the project was instigated, because there was no consultation with the parish council or local people. It has had a dire impact on people in the area who wish to sell their properties and on nearby farms that do farmhouse bed and breakfast, because it is a massive blot on the landscape in that rural and beautiful parish.
	My question for the Environment Agency is whether the area will be restored to its greenfield status, so that the people who live around it can try to get back to normal as soon as possible. I received a letter from the Minister at the beginning of the foot and mouth outbreak telling me that the Environment Agency was responsible for such projects, but I have now had a letter from the Environment Agency saying that the future of the site and the question of its reinstatement should be directed to the Department. Tonight, I am doing just that. I hope that the Minister will have the answer, but if he does not I can tell him that the people of the parish of Oakford would like an answer. I urge the Minister to look into that situation, which is causing a huge problem. If the pit is not to be used, why was it put there in the first place—and why is it still in that state?
	Another parish on the other side of my constituency has a problem, too. My constituency covers 600 square miles, so the two places are quite a long way apart. Burlescombe is just off junction 27 of the M5, near the A38, which goes to Wellington. During the election campaign, several people from the parish expressed to me their concern about material being stored off the A38 in sealed drums, watched over by security guards. Since the election I have had more telephone calls from constituents expressing further concerns about the material being stored in Burlescombe. They had also seen trailers clearly containing carcases, with only tarpaulins over the top, and with no motorised cabs attached, abandoned in lay-bys off the A38.
	People are very concerned about that. We have all heard that in other sites in Devon, some of the ash from the pyres may be contaminated, and the people of Burlescombe want to know what the parish is being used for in terms of storing carcases or other material connected with foot and mouth.
	Again, I ask the Minister to investigate for me. As a Member of Parliament, I have not been able to get answers to my questions. Can he tell me what is going on in my constituency? If he reassures me, I would like to go and take a look to reassure myself that my constituents' fears are unfounded. The parish is a long way from any foot and mouth outbreak; it is "clean", and my constituents have a right to know what is being done on their doorstep.
	I shall now talk about the support—or rather, the lack of support—for businesses affected by foot and mouth. I shall give the Minister an example of that by reading a letter that I received this week from a farmer in the hilly sheep country north of Tiverton. Like many farmers, the people on that farm have diversified. They keep special breeds—rare sheep, which are kept for their wool alone—and have set up on farm a business manufacturing woollen garments and gifts with the wool from their own sheep.
	The wool cannot leave the farm, and because those sheep are sheared in winter, the last shearing was in January. The farmer has therefore had no income since the beginning of the outbreak of foot and mouth. She wrote to me:
	"Our son brought us a food parcel last week with toilet rolls and soap powder—we did not have enough money for a loaf of bread."
	My constituent asked me what was happening to all the money that we keep hearing about—the millions of pounds and all those schemes that are supposedly helping people who, through no fault of their own, are not only finding it tough but are almost at the limit. I shall not read the rest of the letter, because although my constituent knows that I am raising her case in the House tonight, in all fairness, and for obvious reasons, I do not wish to give her name and address. These people are on the edge, and it is no good Ministers standing up and saying that there is a million pounds for this or a million pounds for that; they need help, and they need it quickly.
	I have another letter, from Devonshire Heartland Association, which is focused mainly on Crediton, Tiverton, and the rest of mid-Devon. That organisation says that because of the crisis it has lost half its members, who cannot afford the membership fees.
	The tourism industry in my constituency is in dire straits. There was an awful lot of good will among many people and organisations that voluntarily raised money to help. They were not simply looking to the Government for handouts. Many people in the west country contributed to the green welly campaign, for example, including local newspapers such as The Western Morning News. When the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), came to Devon, it was promised that that fund would be matched, pound for pound. Now we find that that did not include any corporate donations. There is a feeling in Devon that the Government have reneged on a promise that was designed to support and help the people I have just described.
	We have just read of the report of the New Local Government Network, a think-tank close to the Government. It has, astonishingly, suggested a £3 a night tourism levy. I hope that the Minister will recognise the plight of the tourism industry and reject any such proposals.
	The Government have told us that the small business loans guarantee scheme is available to help those who have problems as a result of foot and mouth. A written answer shows that only four tourism businesses have been awarded such grants. Where is the money going? I received a letter from my regional development agency saying that so many millions were going on this and so many millions on that. The money is clearly not going to the people who need it or to the sharp end. I believe that it is being spent on jobs for the boys—to the people who are analysing the problems, offering consultancy and doing everything but putting the money where it should go and should have been received weeks ago.
	We should look at how this public money is being used. It is certainly not helping my constituents, and I believe that it should. It is incumbent on the Government to check how public money is being used, because clearly it is not going to the right place.
	There was expectation of support for the farming community in Devon through the First Aid music festival, which was planned for the bank holiday weekend at the end of May. Small businesses and farmers in Devon had expected that to be another fillip that would help them, but the festival was cancelled. There was speculation that public money was spent on the event, which was then cancelled. I should like the Minister to look into that. Why was it cancelled? Was public money spent on it? If so, why is public money being used in that way, when farming, tourism and associated businesses in the county of Devon and in my constituency in particular need it?
	These people will not survive, through no fault of their own. I refer not just to those who have had confirmed cases of foot and mouth but to many other businesses, all of which are inter-related. Some people are still stuck on their farms after many weeks, some can see no future and many are looking to the Government for the answers. I hope that the Minister will give me some answers tonight. 7.18 pm

Alun Michael: I have two difficulties when it comes to answering the questions of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). First, she asked many specific questions. I understand her wish for a response to them, and had I had advance notice, we would have done some work to provide answers to them. However, I will certainly take away all the specific questions that she asked and respond as quickly as possible. I shall respond now, in the 11 minutes remaining to me—that is the second difficulty—to the greatest extent possible.
	I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and introducing a series of very important issues through her questions. The impact of foot and mouth disease on rural issues has been massive for farmers and the wider rural community, and the hon. Lady referred to both elements. I welcome the opportunity to respond as far as I can to some of her questions.
	The hon. Lady asked about the future of a specific site in her constituency. In general terms, it was very difficult in the early stages of the impact of foot and mouth to anticipate what requirements there would be. It was a fast-moving situation. Indeed, I had some experience of that in my constituency, with a site that in the event turned out not to be required. Everybody concerned had to move quickly. I will look at the specific circumstances and write to the hon. Lady.
	The hon. Lady referred to the situation in Burlescombe, concerns about storage, and reports of vehicles in lay-bys with carcases simply covered by tarpaulin. If such a report is a rumour, it is difficult to respond to, but if there is specific evidence of circumstances, time and place, clearly one can investigate. If information is provided contemporaneously, it is much easier to investigate. As I am sure the hon. Lady will acknowledge, a lot of information doing the rounds is not rooted in fact, but is based on misunderstanding. It is important for parliamentarians to distinguish between the two. If she can provide me with more specific facts, figures, dates and times, I will be able to pursue the matter further. It is difficult to deal with rumour.
	The hon. Lady gave a specific example of a farm business. Clearly someone has tried through diversification to make a viable business. There is great sympathy for those in such circumstances who have had no income for a period of time. Again, I am happy to look at the specific case if she will provide the information. From the information provided so far I do not know whether that individual has explored all the possibilities available, but we can look at that.
	There are concerns that people do not always use the information, health and support available to them. Last week a report was published which surveyed farm businesses and businesses generally in rural communities in the west midlands. It highlighted the financial impact on the rural economy and the number of people directly affected. It surveyed their concerns about the future. It also asked whether they had sought advice or help from the services available. Eighty per cent. had not done so. Sixty per cent. had not come up with ideas to diversify, change or market their business. In the depths of the direct impact of foot and mouth disease that is understandable, but we need to encourage people to use the support available and to question whether the information and opportunities are reaching them. Again, if the hon. Lady will provide the information, I will look into it.
	We are looking at the operation of the scheme to match donations by the public. It has moved a lot of money quickly into help for people through welfare activities which the voluntary sector can often deal with more speedily and effectively than the public sector. The undertaking was to match pound for pound donations from members of the public, and that has been kept. I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but that promise has been kept.
	The hon. Lady asked about tourism and whether I and my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were aware of its plight. Yes, we are. My two first meetings with ministerial colleagues on taking up my present role were with the Minister at the Home Office who has responsibility for the voluntary sector and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who has responsibility for tourism. We looked at ways in which our officials could work together to ensure that we do all we can to restore tourism in the countryside.
	The hon. Lady asked about opening footpaths. The urgency in that is to ensure that rural businesses in tourism, hotels, farms that have diversified into accommodation, and so on, can restore their business as quickly as possible. Many of them face a massive challenge.
	The hon. Lady also asked who has the responsibility for reopening footpaths. The matter is clear. Perhaps I could send her a copy of a letter that I wrote today clarifying the whole situation for one of her colleagues, following an Adjournment debate yesterday—I am becoming a specialist. That letter sets out the situation comprehensively. In essence, the power of footpath closure lies with local authorities. At an early stage of the outbreak, local authorities were given the power to introduce blanket bans under which an area can be put under a prohibition through a single signature, instead of each footpath having to be signed off.
	We are currently holding consultations on lifting blanket bans where they are no longer needed—I hope to make a decision during the next week. In some counties there have been no—or few—incidences of the disease, so the continuation of a blanket ban, which was introduced swiftly to enable a local authority to get a grip on the situation as a precautionary measure, is no longer appropriate. I have given local authorities the opportunity to put the case for a blanket ban where they think it justified. We should not be surprised to receive applications from those areas which experienced the largest outbreaks, including Cumbria and north Devon. We shall consider such requests carefully.
	When a blanket ban is lifted, the power of footpath closure is left with the local authority, as is normally the case. The advice is that a 3 km area around an incidence should be the subject of such precautionary closures. That is greater than the distance needed in respect of the threat or the dangers, but it is a precautionary measure.
	The damage to rural businesses from the closure of footpaths is enormous. Biosecurity is crucial. The big danger is from people having contact with animals, or from contact between animals. That is why advice was issued earlier this week in an excellent video. I understand that the hon. Lady has a copy, even though you may not yet have received yours Mr. Deputy Speaker. The video is worth watching, because it makes clear the measures that are necessary for protection from the dangers of spread. It also explains that footpath openings will continue unless there is a need for protection against the danger of infection.
	This is the right balance. It fits well with the balance mentioned by the hon. Lady when, in opening the debate, she referred to the damage that was done directly to farmers through the impact of foot and mouth disease and to its knock-on effects on those rural businesses—including the closure of footpaths.
	I told the hon. Lady earlier that it would be difficult to answer all her questions in the short time available, but I will try to pick up on some of them. She asked where the money is going. We have the strongest possible commitment to ensure that the money goes to the sharp end. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work that is being undertaken by the people in our regional offices in conjunction with the regional development agencies and with local partners who are giving direct business advice.
	I visited a regional office last week and met people who had just returned after working long hours directly combating foot and mouth disease and were then going straight on to help rural businesses and farmers. We should appreciate the pressure on our staff, as well as that on rural communities, and pay tribute to their work.
	The hon. Lady's point about the financial pressures of veterinary inspection and her other points are well understood. I assure her that Ministers have those issues under active consideration.
	It is not surprising that we are debating the impact of foot and mouth for the third time this week, because it is such an immediate and challenging problem. I understand the pressures on people and the concerns that the hon. Lady has understandably expressed on behalf of her constituency. I shall write to her taking up the specific points that she raised during her half of this debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.